alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOHN DR

AYTON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-16846 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-03056-DM C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 10, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , W . FLETC HER , a nd SANC HEZ, C irc uit Judge s. John Dra y ton a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the 

# F IL ED
MAY12 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of his a pplic a tion for disa

bility insura

nc e be ne fits a nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Attmore v . C

olv in , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016), a n d we a ffirm
. The Adm inistra

tive La wJudge (“ ALJ” ) did not e rr in e v a l uat ing the m e dic a l
re c o rd, a nd substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) de te rm ination. Se e B ay liss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005) (a ffirm ing the R

FC whe re the ALJ “ a

pplie d the prope r le ga l sta

nda rd and his de c ision is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e ” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the ALJ’ s de te rm ination, a

t ste p four, tha

t Dray ton c ould pe rform

his pa st re le va

nt work a s a c tua lly

pe rform e d. S

e e C armic k le v . C omm’r, Soc . Se c . Admin. , 533 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting out the

sta nda rd). The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le a r, and c onvinc ing re a sons to disc ount Dray ton’ s te stim ony , c iting fa c tors inc luding la c k of c orroborat ing obje c tive
m e dic a l e vide nc e , inc onsiste nt c la im ant te stim ony , a n d inc o nsiste nt be havior. Se e 20 C
. F.R . §§ 404.1529(c )(4), 416.929(c )(4) (the ALJ c onside rs a c la im ant’ s sta te m e nts “ i n re lation to the obje c tive m e dic a l and othe r e vide n c e ” ); C armic k le , 533 F.3d a

t 1161 (a n ALJ m ay

re je c t a c l a im ant’ s te stim ony

in fa vor of a doc tor’ s
2c ontra dic tory opinion); Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th C ir. 2005) (ALJ prope rly c onside re d a

la c k of c orroborat ing m e dic a l e vide nc e a s one fa c tor in the
c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion); Tonape t

y an v . Halte r , 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th C ir. 2001) (ALJ prope rly

disc ounte d te stim ony

ba se d on c la im ant’ s te s tim ony and phy sic ia n’ s obse rva tions of inc onsiste n t sy m ptom be havior). AFFIRM E D.

3
# C_2009253EN.01000101.xml

| 23.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 October 2009

2009/C 253/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5000 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4438 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3234 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5105 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3270 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,917 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 265,92 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7085 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1870 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2915 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2040 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6235 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5740 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,6251 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9872 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0947 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 784,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2305 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2438 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2213 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 352,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0978 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,590 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,6060 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,183 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5998 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,4295 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,1100 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5000

JPY

Japanese yen

136,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4438

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90530

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3234

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5105

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3270

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,917

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

265,92

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7085

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1870

RON

Romanian leu

4,2915

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2040

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6235

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5740

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,6251

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9872

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0947

KRW

South Korean won

1 784,31

ZAR

South African rand

11,2305

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2438

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2213

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 352,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0978

PHP

Philippine peso

70,590

RUB

Russian rouble

43,6060

THB

Thai baht

50,183

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5998

MXN

Mexican peso

19,4295

INR

Indian rupee

70,1100

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2010077EN.01000201.xml

| 26.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 March 2010

2010/C 77/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3356 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4417 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89440 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6650 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4280 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0770 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,363 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 263,73 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7074 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8880 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,0633 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0545 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4619 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3590 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3662 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8817 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8765 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 525,82 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8925 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1183 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2630 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 173,12 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4302 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,906 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,5415 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,260 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3952 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7264 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,7700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3356

JPY

Japanese yen

123,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4417

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89440

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6650

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4280

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0770

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,363

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

263,73

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7074

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8880

RON

Romanian leu

4,0633

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0545

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4619

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3590

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3662

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8817

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8765

KRW

South Korean won

1 525,82

ZAR

South African rand

9,8925

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1183

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2630

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 173,12

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4302

PHP

Philippine peso

60,906

RUB

Russian rouble

39,5415

THB

Thai baht

43,260

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3952

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7264

INR

Indian rupee

60,7700

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WINNIE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-318/RS-EMT

CINCINNATI INS. CO.,

a foreign corporation, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Notice of Settlement (Doc. 108). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. 

Loc. 16.2 it is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves 

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this 

Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes, 

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is direct to 

close the case in its entirety for all purposes. 

4. All outstanding motions are denied as moot. 

ORDERED on May 11, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-00318-RS-EMT Document 109 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 1
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 343

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOHNATHAN BALL

, Appellant

,

v.

ISAAC SAGREDO

, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 389th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides

, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

This matter is before the Court on appellant’s and appellee’s motion s to dismiss

the appeal

. Both parties individually request that the matter be dismissed.

The Court, having considered the motion s , is of the opinion that the motion s should

be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellant’s and appellee’s motion s

to dismiss are granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed ag ainst2

the appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ( Absent agreement of the parties, the court will

tax costs against the appellant

. ). B ecause the appeal is dismissed at the parties’ request,

no motion for rehearing will be entertained

.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

18th day of August , 20 2 2.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134994 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134994 COA: 268804 Calhoun CC: 2004-004501-FH NICHOLE TASHA JACOBY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

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 Soy Energy, LLC (the
Company) for the quarter ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dallas Thompson,
Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | /s/ Dallas Thompson           
| |                               
| |                               
| | Dallas Thompson, Treasurer and
| | Chief
 Financial Officer      
| |                               
| | Dated:
 September 14, 2009    

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER W. KLAES, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv223-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated December 27, 2011. (Doc. 16). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to terminate the plaintiff’s

disability insurance benefits due to medical improvement is AFFIRMED.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00223-MP-GRJ Document 17 Filed 03/04/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RANDALL W. KENT,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv449/RS-CJK

FAST AND FREE INDUSTRIES,

INC. and TH0MAS L. JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Response To Order To Show Cause (Doc. 15).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall cause process to be properly

served upon Defendants not later than May 9, 2011.

ORDERED on March 23, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements Nos. 333-20549, 333-65459, 333-38568, 333-88836, 333-107645, 333-129922, 333-148139 and 333-155197 on Form S-8, Nos. 333-123246, 333-138067 and 333-148186 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 2, 2009, relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48,*Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*in 2007 and the adoption of FASB Statement No. 123R, *Share-Based Payment*in 2006), and the effectiveness of Powerwave Technologies, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California 

March 2, 2009
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al

vs

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al

Case No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT

ORDER

Your document, MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR STEVE SCHONBERG TO

INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF (received 3/30/10), was referred to the undersigned

with the following deficiencies:

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule 5(b)

and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper service.

The first page of the document does not have a bottom margin of at least

two inches as required by N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(B)(3).

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

The submitted hard copy of the document shall be returned to you by the Clerk

without electronic filing. It may be resubmitted after the above noted deficiencies

are corrected.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2010.

 /s Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 7 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RONALD L. ANDREWS, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv66/MCR/EMT

ESCAMBIA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated January 4, 2012 (doc. 20). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No timely objections have 1

been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the record, I have

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This cause is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim against the named 

Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff was also granted an additional thirty days in which to file objections (doc. 1

23).

Case 3:11-cv-00066-MCR-EMT Document 24 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Earl Williams, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  January 28, 2009



/s/ Kenneth G. Eade

Kenneth G. Eade

Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

OFC HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 5:09cv290/RS/MD

TAUNTON TRUSS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the Clerk. On January 11,

2010, all parties to this litigation executed a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment

Upon Default and Providing for Dismissal with Prejudice Upon Completion of

Payments (“Joint Stipulation”). (Doc. 16, Ex. A). Under the Joint Stipulation,

defendants were required to make payment of $374,096.97 (the “Settlement Sum”)

on or before March 15, 2010. By agreement, any failure by defendants to make the

required payment would entitle plaintiff to move the court for entry of a default

judgment against them, jointly and severally, for the total unpaid balance due plus

interest “at the applicable federal judgment rate.” (Id.). According to plaintiff’s

uncontested Status Report and Request for Entry of Judgment Upon Default, which

includes a supporting affidavit and proposed judgment (doc. 18), no payments have

been received from either defendant. Defendants have not responded in opposition

to plaintiff’s request for entry of a default judgment. 

Defendants’ failure to pay the Settlement Sum puts them in default of the

terms of the agreement, and plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment against both

defendants, jointly and severally, for the unpaid balance due under the agreement. 
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That the clerk be directed to enter defaults against the defendants. 

2. That plaintiff’s proposed judgment be entered. (See Doc. 18, Ex. 1). 

3. That this file be closed.

At Pensacola, Florida this 8 day of April, 2010.

th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy thereof. A copy of objections shall

be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate

review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 5:09cv290/RS/MD
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 69709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5996]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Society of Mechanical Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 2, 2007, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') 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, since July 
10, 2007, ASME has published one new standard and initiated one new 
standards activity within the general nature and scope of ASME's 
standards development activities, as specified in its original 
notification. More details regarding these changes can be found at 
http://www.asme.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASME 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 October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 11, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51839).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-5996 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M