alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18447]



[[Page 54773]]

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 05-137]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: September 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, 
Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; 
telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.

NASA Case No. ARC-15461-1: Portable Virtual Environment System for 
Emergency Response Applications;
NASA Case No. ARC-15487-1: Communication Path for Extreme Environments;
NASA Case No. ARC-15542-1: Catalyst Selection for Synthesis of 
Inorganic Nanostructures and Nanowires;
NASA Case No. ARC-15564-1: Clench Mode Control of Vehicle Motion or 
Appliance Operation;
NASA Case No. ARC-15461-2: Portable Environment Interrogation System 
for Health Care Workers in an Emergency Environment;
NASA Case No. ARC-15519-1: Applications of Sub-Audible Speech 
Recognition Based Upon Electromyographic Signals.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management.
[FR Doc. 05-18447 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Amendment No. 2 to 2005 Equity Incentive Plan dated as of May 19, 2009



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO 

GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, the GrafTech International Ltd. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) was adopted, effective May 25, 2005; and 

WHEREAS, GrafTech International Ltd. wishes to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered
under the 2005 Plan by 4,000,000 shares; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective upon the approval of this
Amendment No. 2 by the stockholders of GrafTech International Ltd., as follows: 
 Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended to read:

 “3.1 Number of Shares. Subject to Sections 3.2 and 3.3, the aggregate number of Shares that may be delivered under this
Plan is 8,800,000 Shares. The Shares delivered under this Plan may consist of authorized but unissued Shares or issued Shares that have been reacquired by the Company.” 

 

			
	Approved on behalf of
	GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. and its Subsidiaries
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Craig. S. Shular

	Name: Craig S. Shular
	Title: CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board
	Date: May 19, 2009
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 19, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS TAYLOR DORAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DANIEL A SANCHEZ; FIRST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT;

COUNTY OF SANTA FE; STATE OF

NEW MEXICO,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-2042

(D.C. No. 07-CV-00916-MCA-RHS)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas Doran appeals the dismissal of his claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Daniel Sanchez. The district court denied

reconsideration, as well as attorney fees then sought by Judge Sanchez. Mr.

Doran alleges that Judge Sanchez improperly dismissed a state court case
1

 The motion for reconsideration, which the court treated as a motion under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), is not under review because Mr. Doran did not amend his

notice of appeal after the district court’s ruling on that motion. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

- 2 -

adjudicated before him. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a

claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii)

pursuant to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity on the claim against Judge

Sanchez and because the claims against the other defendants were unintelligible. 

Doc. 23, 26. We agree for substantially the same reasons given by the district

court. Judge Sanchez was acting in his judicial capacity in presiding over the

state court case, and those actions are entitled to absolute immunity even when

“alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” See Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (quotations omitted). Any claims against other

defendants were properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as

insufficiently developed.1

 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
A-rrORNlcY C.RNRRAII January 9, 1968

Miss Edna Cisneros Opinion No; M-184 

### countyAttorney Willacy County Courthouse Raymondville, Texas
Dear Miss Cisneros: Re: Fees to be collected in Felony and Misdemeanor Cases

Your request for an opinion poses the following questions:1. What fees are peace officers entitled to

collect inmisdemeanor cases and felony cases? 2. What fees is the District Clerk entitled to collect,in felony cases?
Fees allowed the sheriff and other peace officers in misdemeanor cases are governed by the provisions of:Article 53.01,Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure. Attorney General's Opinions No. C-605 (19661,C-688 (1966),C-596 (1966) .andC-542 (1965). Article 1029,Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to Willacy County, prescribes the fees allowed the sheriff and constables in felony cases and Article 1064,Vernon's Code of ,CriminalProcedure, as amended by House Bill No. 79 (Acts60th Leg., 1967, ch. 743, p. 20101, prescribes the fees allowed District and County Clerks in criminal cases. Attorney General's Opinion No. M-168 (1967).

Itwas held inAttorney General's Opinion No. M-168 that House Bill No. 79 (Acts60th Leg., 1967, ch. 743, p. 2010) merely changed the amount of fees payable to District and County Clerks in criminal cases and re-affirmed Attorney General's Opinion No. W-820 (1960).

You are, therefore, advised in answer toyour first question that fees tobe collected by peace officers inmisdemeanor cases are governed by theprovisions ofArticle 53.01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, and fees in felony cases are those prescribed inArticle 1029,Vernon's Code of Criminal PrOcedure. In answer toyour second question, you are advised that fees allowed the District Clerk are those fees set out inArticle 1064,Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure. -880.Miss Edna Cisneros, page 2, (M-184)

We are enclosing with this opinion Attorney General's Opinions No. W-820 (1960),C-542 (1965),C-596 (19661,C-605 (1966),C-6,8,8

(1966)and M-168 (1967).

SUMMARY
Fees to be collected by peace officers inmisdemeanor cases are governed by the pr,ovisions ofArticle 53.01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, and fees in felony cases are those prescribed inArticle 1029,Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure. Fees allowed the District Clerk are those fees set out in Article 1064,Vernon'sCode of Criminal Procedure. L truly yours,

General of Texas Prepared by John Reeves Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman W. V. Geppert Robert Owen Bill Craig Jo Betsy Lewallen STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT A. J. Carubbi, Jr.

-881-
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        May 11, 2006 By:  /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.    Robert W. Zoller, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and President
IN RE J.C.

No. COA08-851.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06J1185).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
In the Matter of M.L.N., E.J.N.

No. COA15-301.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded in Part; Dismissed in Part.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Ralph M. Amato, certify that:

6) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BoysToys.com, Inc.

7) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report.

8) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

9) The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (ass 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 which this report is being prepared; and

     (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; and

     (c) 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

10) 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated:  November 11, 2004
By:  /s/ Ralph M. Amato
In the Matter of H.G., A Juvenile.

No. COA 15-869.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# CE2004065EN.01000202.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/2

---

(2004/C 65 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject:   The A-9 Motorway between Spain and Portugal and infringement of Community environmental legislation

Subject:

The building work on the A-9 motorway between the Rebullón (Tui, Spain) interchange and the Portuguese frontier is having an enormous environmental impact on the area, causing a whole range of damage, particularly to the existing watercourses. When designing the motorway section which affects the area's inhabitants, the environmental damage caused was not assessed: a particular glaring absence from the studies made were the underground watercourses, which are required for human consumption and the irrigation of surrounding agricultural land. The resulting defective drainage in conjunction with meteorological conditions, has irreversible consequences for the area. The public administrations responsible for the construction work (Ministry of Development, the Xunta de Galicia and the local authorities) are dodging the problem and ignoring the numerous and frequent organised protests by local people. Although there have even been two deaths: a lorry driver was killed by the fall of a girder, and a local person died during a protest. Both these incidents are sub judice.

What Community funding is going into the completion of the roadworks in question? Could the Commission investigate whether these roadworks involve infringement of environmental legislation on the dumping of waste on the part of the Spanish Government?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

(3 April 2003)

The Commission learned of the situation reported by the Honourable Member through Written Question E-1924/02 by Mrs Rosa Miguélez Ramos and Mrs María Sornosa Martínez (1). It subsequently opened an own-initiative case (reference No 2002/2199).

1

To check that the relevant Community legislation was being properly enforced, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for information on the reported situation.

In response, the Spanish authorities sent the impact statement regarding the route of the motorway, along with the consent for the project granted on 30 August 2000.

The Spanish authorities also sent a copy of the hydrology chapter of the project impact study. This is currently being examined by the Commission.

As for Community funding of these roadworks, from the information the Spanish authorities supplied to the Commission it appears that construction of the stretch of the A-9 motorway running from the Rebullón interchange to the Portuguese border is being financed entirely by a concession-holding company and that no Community funding is involved.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

1

---
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion 

filed November 3, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NOS. 14-15-00903-CR, 14-15-00905-CR, 

14-15-00906-CR, and 14-15-00907-CR

IN RE OVERILLE DENTON THOMPSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1445929, 1445930, 1446657, and 1468823.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 26, 2015, relator Overille Denton Thompson filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West

2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to hold 

the Honorable Susan Brown, presiding judge of the 185th District Court of Harris 

County in contempt.
2

This court, as an intermediate court of appeals, is not authorized to grant the 

relief relator seeks. In criminal matters, an intermediate court of appeals has no 

original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). The courts authorized to issue 

writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 

district courts, and county courts. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (West 

2015). 

Therefore, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas for lack of 

jurisdiction.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost, and Justices Christopher and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Henry Platsky, Plaintiff-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Yahoo! Inc., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered March 29, 2017, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Adam Silvera, J.), entered March 29, 2017, affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. The evidentiary proof submitted by defendant, including plaintiff's deposition transcript, establishes, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain any damages as a result of defendant's alleged breach of the Terms of Service governing the underlying email account. "Where a party has failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to demonstrate damages flowing from the breach alleged and relies, instead, on wholly speculative theories of damages, dismissal of the breach of contract claim is in order" (<i>Lexington 360 Assoc. v First Union Natl. Bank of N. Carolina</i>, 234 AD2d 187, 190 [1996]).</p><p>To the extent plaintiff seeks to recover damages based on allegations of harassment by defendant, New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action for harassment (<i>see Edelstein v Farber</i>, 27 AD3d 202 [2006]), and the conduct complained of did not give rise to any other cognizable cause of action or basis for tort liability. Plaintiff's reliance upon the definition of second degree harassment contained in Penal Law ยง 240.26(3) is both unpreserved and entirely misplaced.</p><p>In view of our determination, we need not address defendant's alternative grounds for affirmance.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: September 22, 2017</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18337]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, October 28, 2005.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC., 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-18337 Filed 9-12-05; 11:52 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.0

                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 on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp.
for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Gary R. Chapman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, William A. Cunningham, Vice President
and Controller, Deborah R. Jacobson, Vice President of Corporate Development and
Treasurer, and Peter E. Maloney, Vice President of Finance, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ Gary R. Chapman
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Gary R. Chapman
                                    Chief Executive Officer

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ William A. Cunningham
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    William A. Cunningham
                                    Vice President and Controller

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ Deborah R. Jacobson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Deborah R. Jacobson
                                    Vice President of Corporate Development and
                                    Treasurer

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ Peter E. Maloney
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Peter E. Maloney
                                    Vice President of Finance
# C_2009193EN.01003702.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — De Geest v Council

(Case F-21/05) (1)

1

2009/C 193/63

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 28.

1

---