alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 65 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3034/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Term of patents for computer-implemented inventions

At the sitting of 24 September 2003 Parliament voted at first reading on the proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Pursuant to Article 8(b) of the proposal, as amended by Parliament, the Commission is required to submit to Parliament and the Council a report on the issue of whether the rules governing the term of patents and the determination of patentability requirements, and more specifically novelty, inventive step and the proper scope of claims, are adequate.

Can the Commission state whether it regards the standard patent term (20 years) as suitable for software-related inventions? Does the Commission not regard a shorter period as desirable for this kind of high-technology invention? Does the Commission not take the view that such a decision might foster competition on the European market in software-related inventions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

It is a long-standing feature of patent law that the term of protection is the same for all inventions, in all fields of technology. This principle has been enshrined as a firm legal obligation at the international level in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The only deviation from this rule currently practised is to allow for an increased term of protection for certain products which are subject to lengthy regulatory approval procedures and which would therefore be subject, in the absence of such a provision, to a relatively short period of effective protection in the marketplace.

Nevertheless, the Commission is aware of arguments to the effect that the standard term of protection of 20 years is not appropriate for all fields of technology, and for this reason has agreed, in its response to the amendments made at first reading to the proposal, to examine the question. This examination would naturally take account of the need to encourage innovation and competition. It must, however, be appreciated that there would be considerable legal and technical challenges involved in making any change in this area, not the least of which is the practical difficulty in defining, in sufficiently precise and watertight legal terms, the boundaries of the subject-matter to which different terms of protection might be applied. Moreover, even if it should be concluded that it is desirable and feasible to make such a change, for the reasons mentioned above, this would need to be pursued as a policy objective through international negotiations.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                           6,848,947
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      319,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (45,969)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,141,804
<PP&E>                                             424,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (97,149)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,574,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,696,350
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           265,851
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,612,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,574,379
<SALES>                                            338,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   338,546
<CGS>                                              251,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,335,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 165,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,357,294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,357,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,357,294)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.05)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.6

                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE

                    RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                                 i3 MOBILE, INC.

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

                     Pursuant to Sections 212 and 242 of the
                General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

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

         i3 MOBILE, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify that:

         FIRST: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, by the unanimous
written consent of all members thereof in lieu of a meeting, duly adopted a
resolution setting forth the proposed amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation (the "Restated Certificate"), declaring said
amendment to be advisable and calling for the submission of said amendment to
the stockholders of the Corporation for their approval, and stating that such
amendment will be effective only after the approval thereto by the stockholders
of the Corporation.

         SECOND: Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors
of the Corporation, said amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the
Corporation at a meeting held on May 22, 2002, and such holders gave their
approval and agreed to the adoption of the following resolution to amend the
Restated Certificate:

         RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Article "FOURTH" of the Restated
Certificate is hereby amended to increase the authorized number of shares of
Common Stock of the Corporation and, as so amended, shall read in its entirety
as follows:

         "FOURTH. Number of Shares. The total number of shares of stock which
         the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 75,000,000 shares of
         Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share ("Common Stock"), and 50,000
         shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share ("Preferred
         Stock")."

         THIRD: This said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
provisions of Sections 212 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto sign my name and affirm that the
statements made herein are true under the penalty of perjury, this 11th day of
June, 2002.

                                                      i3 MOBILE, INC.

                                                      By: /s/ Edward J. Fletcher
                                                          ----------------------
                                                          Edward J. Fletcher
EXHIBIT 99.1


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS


Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form
  10-QSB complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
  fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
  of operations of the Company.
  May 14, 2003

/s/ JEFFREY L MINCH
  Jeffrey L. Minch 
  President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ KATHRYN L SCANLON
  Kathryn L. Scanlon
  Secretary and Treasurer
  (Principal financial and accounting officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11405 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERIC RELIFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-237-1-X

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Eric Reliford has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in this appeal of a conviction and sentence imposed for bank robbery. Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
[LETTERHEAD OF GRIMSLEY, WHITE & COMPANY]



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



January 28, 2003



The Board of Directors
High Country Bancorp, Inc.


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(File Nos. 333-40385 and 333-69053) on Form S-8 of High Country Bancorp, Inc. of
our report  dated August 27, 2002  relating to the  consolidated  statements  of
financial  condition of High Country Bancorp,  Inc. as of June 30, 2002, and the
related  consolidated  statements of income,  equity and cash flows for the year
then ended, which report appears in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002 of High Country Bancorp, Inc.



                                            /s/ Grimsley, White & Company
                                            Grimsley, White & Company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      20,367,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,547,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,973
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,167,219
<PP&E>                                       1,222,179
<DEPRECIATION>                               (109,129)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,554,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,410,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,777
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,484,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,554,487
<SALES>                                      7,879,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,879,078
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,907,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,551,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                684,257
<INCOME-TAX>                                   263,952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            263,952
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   309,805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Kyle BIGGS, Defendant.

No. COA14-1349.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies,
pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Hauppauge Digital Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      August 16, 2010
            /s/ Kenneth PlotkinKenneth
      PlotkinChief
      Executive Officer/s/ Gerald TucciaroneGerald
      TucciaroneChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurerand
      Secretary
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Grunley/Goel JV, LLC ) ) Under Contract No. W912DR-11-C-0027 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59356

Robert J. Symon, Esq. Aron C. Beezley, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Washington, DC Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Veronica L. Norman, Esq.

Assistant District Counsel U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 21 August 2014

# /~**~/ ~~~~---**  MARK N. STEMPI.: R Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59356, Appeal ofGrunley/Goel JV, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00183-CR

La Baaron Hutchison, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-09-301210, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

La Baaron Hutchison seeks to appeal from a September 2, 2010 judgment of

conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. However, the trial court certified that:

(1) this is a plea bargain case and Hutchison has no right of appeal, and (2) Hutchison waived

the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Hutchison and his counsel signed the

certification.

Further, Hutchison’s attempted notice of appeal is untimely. Sentence was imposed

on September 2, 2010. No motion for new trial was filed, thus the deadline for perfecting appeal was

October 4, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 4.1(a). Hutchison’s notice of appeal was filed with

the trial court on March 15, 2011, and with this Court on March 28, 2011. There was no request for

extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Additionally, there is no
indication that notice of appeal was properly mailed to the district clerk within the time prescribed

by rule 26.2(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).

Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction over Hutchison’s appeal and therefore

dismissit for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 3, 2011

Do Not Publish

2
Exhibit 99.17
 CONSENT OF HERBERT A. SMITH
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 29, 2011, entitled Pueblo Viejo Gold Project, Dominican
Republic, Technical Report, Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation (the Pueblo Viejo Report);
and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information
relating to the Pueblo Viejo Report and the Pueblo Viejo Project, and the properties
described therein.
  Date: March 31, 2011/s/ Herbert A. SmithName:
    Herbert A. Smith, P. Eng.
[Cite as State v. Jones , 2024

- Ohio

- 121.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER C OUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

, Appellee,

- vs
-

ANDREW JONES

, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO . CA2023

- 07

- 071

D E C I S I O N 1/16/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2020

- 07

- 0939

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

. Law Office of John H. Forg, and John H. Forg, III , for appellant

.

Per Curiam

. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Andrew Jones

, the transcript of the docke t and journal entries, the tran script of

proceedings and original papers from the Butler C ounty Court of Common Pleas, and

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's c ounsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967)

, which (1) indicates that a careful review

of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial courtButler CA20 23

- 07

- 071

- 2

- prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated;

(2) lists four 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 t o determine

whether the proceed ings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of
appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests 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} 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 trial court. The motion of counsel

for appella nt requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed

for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL , P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.

NOTICE TO THE CLERK:

Serve a copy of this decision upon appellant at: Andrew Jones, # A817259, Pickaway Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 209 , Orient, OH 43146[Cite as State v. Jones , 2024

- Ohio

- 121.]
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 75 

To require the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize the proposed rule 

relating to the reduction of fuel tank flammability exposure, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Aviation Administration to finalize 

the proposed rule relating to the reduction of fuel tank 

flammability exposure, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flight 800 Improve5 ment Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF FAA RULE RELATING TO 

7 FUEL TANK FLAMMABILITY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, not later than January 1, 2008, the Federal 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 75 IS

1 Aviation Administration shall finalize and implement, in 

2 accordance with paragraph (2), the rule proposed by the 

3 Federal Aviation Administration relating to the reduction 

4 of fuel tank flammability in transport category airplanes 

5 (70 Fed. Reg. 70922, dated November 23, 2005) and op6 erators and manufacturers of airplanes shall take appro7 priate action to comply with the rule. 

8 (b) MATCHING FUNDS.—For each of the fiscal years 

9 2008 through 2017, the Administrator of the Federal 

10 Aviation Administration may provide financial assistance 

11 to operators and manufacturers of airplanes in an amount 

12 that does not exceed $1 for every $1 incurred by such op13 erators and manufacturers for complying with the rule de14 scribed in subsection (a). 

15 (c) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 180 days 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Adminis17 trator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall con18 duct a study and report to Congress regarding ways to 

19 improve the safety and reduce the flammability of fuel 

20 tanks that are located on the wings of airplanes. 

21 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

22 are authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for each 

23 of the fiscal years 2008 through 2017, to carry out the 

24 provisions of subsection (b). 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                              305857
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1079208
<ALLOWANCES>                                         92200
<INVENTORY>                                         758407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2161257
<PP&E>                                             2948881
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1304506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3912690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1585638
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         496236
<COMMON>                                             22624
<OTHER-SE>                                          885276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3912690
<SALES>                                            3981058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3981058
<CGS>                                              2487591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2487591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1401878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     47200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  109807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (17499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (18399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (18399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.04)
        


</TABLE>