alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1980]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Association of Plumbing and 
Mechanical Officials

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 10, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), International Association 
of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (``IAPMO'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the nature and scope of IAPMO's standards development 
activities are: to provide for the erection, installation, alternation, 
addition, repair, relocation, replacement, maintenance, or use of any 
solar, swimming pool, spa or hot tub system.
    On September 14, 2004, IAPMO filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69396).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-1980 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D22-1330

_____________________________

JEREMIAH A. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

September 23, 2022

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jeremiah A. Williams, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of WPT Enterprises, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W.
Todd Steele, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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. Date:
November 17, 2004
    
    /s/ W. Todd SteeleW. Todd SteeleChief Financial Officer
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed March 26, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00121

- CV

____________ THE CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

V. STEVE WILLAMS, ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harr is County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2002

- 22690A



### A B A T E M E N T O R D E R

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment signed November 16, 2012. On March 12, 2013, a ppellant filed a motion to stay the appeal pending a decision by the Texas Supr eme Court in a related case, City of Houston v. Bates,
No. 11

- 0778, which was argued before the high court on January 9, 2013. Appellant asserts that the decision in Bates will control the outcome of this appeal. Appellees have filed a response to the moti on, agreeing to the abatement but requesting a limited abatement period.2

We GRANT appellant’s motion. We order the appeal ABATED pending a decision by the Texas Supreme Court in City of Houston v. Bates, No. 11

- 00778,
or until further order of this court.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and remov ed from this court’ s active docket. The court will consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elder Butts, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 680]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered February 23, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. “A photographic array is suggestive where some characteristic of [an individual’s] picture draws the viewer’s attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection” *(People v Robert,*184 AD2d 597, 598). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there is no indication that his photograph differed significantly from the photographs of the fillers *(see, People v Cotterell,*251 AD2d 679; *People v Burke,*251 AD2d 424). Furthermore, the hearing court properly determined that the passage of six weeks between the display of the photographic array to the witness and his identification of the defendant at the lineup attenuated any possible taint of suggestiveness *(see, People v Young,*167 AD2d 366).

The defendant claims that certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation improperly aroused the jury’s sense *588of sympathy for the decedent (see, *People v Grice,*100 AD2d 419, 422). However, since the defendant failed to object, ask for curative instructions, or move for a mistrial, this issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Yates, 207*AD2d 567), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Daryl JONES

336A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 9, 2017

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Jones, Daryl Lamont.

Glenn G. Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Carole Biggers, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 7th of November 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2017."

Defendant-Appellant shall have up to and including the 8th day of December 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# Official Journal C 268/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.268.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 268 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 555 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.268.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 268

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 555 September 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 268/01 | State aid — Germany — State aid No SA.29404 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011 and ex SA.32091) — Germany — Dortmund airport — NEO — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 268/02 | State aid — Romania — State aid No SA33624 (ex 2011/CP) — Preferential electricity tariffs for ALRO Slatina S.A. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 21 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 268/01

State aid — Germany — State aid No SA.29404 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011 and ex SA.32091) — Germany — Dortmund airport — NEO — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (1)

1

2012/C 268/02

State aid — Romania — State aid No SA33624 (ex 2011/CP) — Preferential electricity tariffs for ALRO Slatina S.A. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

21

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF BURR PILGER MAYER, INC, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

eGain Communications Corporation

Mountain
View, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No.s 333-161019, 333-153763, 333-129854, 333-76692, 333-76690, 333-76688, 333-41394, and 333-32854) and Form S-3, as amended (No. 333-48314) of our report dated September 22, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of eGain Communications Corporation, which appears in eGain Communications Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/    BURR PILGER MAYER, INC.
|San Jose, California          
|                              
|September 22, 2010
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**FERMAVIRPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2006**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I am the Chief FinancialOfficer of FermaVir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”).  I am delivering this certificate inconnection with the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended October31, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-QSB”).

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| December 22, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Frederick Larcombe   |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|              |   | Frederick Larcombe,      |
|              |   | Chief Financial Officer  |
|              |   | (Principal Financial and |
|              |   | Accounting Officer)      |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7272

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JACKIE MCGEORGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-97-51, CA-00-788-7)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie McGeorge, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie McGeorge appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. McGeorge, Nos. CR-97-51; CA-00-788-7

(W.D. Va. June 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Walter P.W. Notter, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Clyvia Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2006, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                         

| | By:    | /s/ Walter P.W. Notter                                   
| | ------ | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |        |                                                          
| | Name:  | WALTER P.W. NOTTER                                       
| |        |                                                          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer
| |        |                                                          
| | Date:  | September 14, 2006                                       





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. John Brooks GLOVER, Defendant.

No. COA17-804

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
AMENDMENT TO 2010 DIRECTORS’ EQUITY
COMPENSATION PLAN


 


ProPhase
Labs, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), hereby adopts this Amendment (this “Amendment”)
to the 2010 Directors’ Equity Compensation Plan (the ‘Plan”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the
Company’s Compensation Committee adopted the Plan and the Board of Directors (the “Board”) ratified the
Plan;


 


WHEREAS, the
Plan was submitted to and ratified by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders on
May 5, 2010;


 


WHEREAS, the
Plan currently provides that the maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Company Stock”)
that may be issued or transferred under the Plan is 250,000 shares;


 


WHEREAS, the
Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Company Stock that may be issued under the Plan by 175,000
shares to a total of 425,000 shares of Company Stock; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant
to Section 11 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.           The
first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“Subject
to Section 8 of the Plan, the total number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan is equal to four hundred twenty-five thousand
Shares.”


 


2.           Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
ProPhase Labs, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the effective date written above.


 


 





	 	PROPHASE LABS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Robert
V. Cuddihy, Jr.
	 	Name:	Robert
V. Cuddihy, Jr.
	 	Title:	Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
	 	Date:	May 6,
2013
In the MATTER OF: S.P.R.-G.

No. COA17-1434

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
(108 So. 420)

No. 27861.

#### BOUDREAUX v. BENNETT.

(May 3, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

Appeal and error <&wkey;>358 — Where order allowing appeal is recalled, but transcript of appeal is, none the less, filed, on appellee’s motion appeal will be dismissed, as there can be no appeal without such order (Code Prac. art. 574).

Where order allowing appeal is recalled as improvidently granted, but transcript of appeal is, none the less, filed, on appellee’s motion the appeal will be dismissed, as, under Code Prac. art. 574, there can be no appeal without such order.

Appeal from Twenty-Second. Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany; Prentiss B. Carter, Judge.

Executory process by Duke S. Boudreaux against OLarence J. Bennett. Defendant applied for injunction without bond, to be issued after hearing. Injunction was denied, and defendant appealed. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

David Sessler, of New Orleans, and Benj. M. Miller, of Covington, for appellant.

Edward Kightor, of New Orleans, and Ered J. Heintz, of Covington, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff sued out executory process against defendant. The latter applied for an injunction, without bond, to be issued after due hearing, on the ground that the note sued on had been paid, and on other grounds. Whereupon-, after due hearing, the injunction was denied; and defendant then appealed.

Thereafter the trial judge recalled his order allowing said appeal, as having been improvidently granted. But the transcript of appeal was, none the less, filed in this court.

Thereupon plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal, and defendant, though duly notified hereof, offers no objection.

As the order of appeal is the very foundation of the appeal (O. P. art. 574), there can be no appeal without such an order to support it; and hence, when the order of appeal was recalled, the appeal fell with it, “sublato fundamento cadit opus.”

Decree.

The appeal herein taken is therefore dismissed.
#### Hudsoncliff Building Co., Inc., Appellant, v Roger Chandler et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 68]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2000, which, in an action by a landlord against a tenant and the Department of Buildings seeking, *inter alia,*a declaration that the subject apartment is not legal, and cannot be made legal, for residential occupancy, and directing the tenant to vacate the apartment, denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment, *sua sponte*dismissed the complaint, and denied the Department of Buildings’ cross motion for summary judgment as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly ruled that in view of the prior, unappealed Civil Court order finding that the subject apartment is covered by the Rent Stabilization Law, the landlord, in seeking a remedy against the tenant, must follow the procedural requirements of that law. Since it appears that the apartment is illegally occupied, we note the availability of an eviction proceeding where the “[o]ccupancy of the housing accommodation by the tenant is illegal because of the requirements of law and the owner is subject to civil or criminal penalties therefor” (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2524.3 [c]). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
STATE v. Michael Patrick RYAN

366A10-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 18, 2018

Marilyn G. Ozer, William F. Massengale, Attorneys at Law, for Ryan, Michael Patrick

Kelvin Atkinson, Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant District Attorneys, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Locke Bell, Attorney at Law, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

William Stevenson, Assistant District Attorney, Bell, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of October 2018 by State of NC :

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of October 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 21st day of November 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT 10.2 


 


SUMMARY OF 2013 INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN


 


The 2013 Incentive Bonus Plan is a short-term
cash incentive plan applicable to certain of our executive officers that was adopted for the purpose of determining the cash bonuses
payable to the executive officers with respect to fiscal year 2013.


 


The target cash bonus amount for each executive
officer is set as a percentage of the officer’s base salary as determined by the Compensation Committee.


 


Cash bonuses will be earned based upon the
achievement of two Company performance targets, which are the same for each of the executive officers, and individual performance
targets, which are different for each executive officer.


 


The first Company performance target relates
to Company revenue in fiscal year 2013. The portion of the cash bonus payable to an executive officer with respect to the Company
revenue target component of the Bonus Plan will be calculated by reference to the Company’s actual revenue in fiscal year
2013 in relation to the revenue target.


 


The second Company performance target relates
to the Company’s cash and investment balance. The portion of the cash bonus payable to any executive officer with respect
to the Company cash and investment management target component of the Bonus Plan is calculated by reference to the Company’s
actual cash and investment balance as of the end of fiscal year 2013 in relation to the targeted balance.


 


In the event that the Company does not achieve
a pre-established minimum revenue target for fiscal year 2013 or have a cash and investment balance of at least a pre-established
minimum amount as of the end of fiscal year 2013, then no cash bonus will be paid with respect to either the Company revenue target
component or the Company cash and investment management target component.


 


The portion of the cash bonus payable to
any executive officer with respect to the individual performance target component of the Bonus Plan is calculated by reference
to the particular executive officer’s achievement of his or her specified performance objectives.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy Ray WASHINGTON.

No. 2002-KO-2963.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Washington, Jimmy Ray; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 204,532; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,224-KA.

Denied.