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

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11647]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Posting of Stockyards

    Pursuant to the authority provided under section 302 of the Packers 
and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202), it was ascertained that the 
livestock markets named below were stockyards as defined by section 
302(a). Notice was given to the stockyard owners and to the public as 
required by section 302(b), by posting notices at the stockyards on the 
dates specified below, that the stockyards were subject to the 
provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 181 et seq.).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facility No., name, and location of                                   
               stockyard                         Date of posting        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR-170--Cattlemen's Livestock, Auction,  March 7, 1996.                 
 Inc., Harrison, Arkansas.                                              
MI-150--Stockbridge Horse Auction,       March 15, 1996.                
 Stockbridge, Michigan.                                                 
TX-344--Sonora Livestock Auction, Inc.,  March 8, 1996.                 
 South Sonora, Texas.                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Done at Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of May 1996.
Daniel L. Van Ackeren,
Director, Livestock Marketing Division, Packers and Stockyards 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-11647 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
```
|   | 1.   |  The Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the ‘‘Periodic Report’’), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2.   | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                  |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Richard J. Lampen         |   | /s/ Alfred J. Small                                   |
|                          |   |                                                  |
| Richard J. Lampen             |   | Alfred J. Small                                       |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   | Chief Financial Officer                               |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting |
|                          |   | Officer)                                              |

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11712]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Notice of Availability of Technology for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive 
or Partially Exclusive Licensing

AGENCY: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Directorate, 
DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6, Section 11(a)(2) of the 
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502) and section 
207 of title 35, United States Code, announcement is made of the 
availability of the following technology for licensing. The Department 
of the Army as represented by the Army Research Laboratory, Physical 
Sciences Directorate wishes to license the technology described below 
in a non-exclusive, exclusive or partially exclusive manner to any part 
interested in manufacturing, using, and/or selling devices or processes 
covered by this technology. This technology has been assigned to the 
United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army, 
Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information regarding 
this notice please contact Mr. William H. Anderson, Intellectual 
Property Law Division, Attention: AMSEL-LG-L, Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 
07703 or telephone (908) 532-4112.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Electro-chemical Capacitor technology 
involves the preparation of electrode materials and the assembly of 
other components together to provide energy with a power higher than 
that of batteries.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-11712 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Exhibit 4.3

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED LIMITED  LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT
OF ICON LEASING FUND ELEVEN, LLC

     This Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Limited  Liability Company
Agreement of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(the "LLC"), is entered into as of August 22, 2006.

     WHEREAS,  that  certain  Amended and  Restated  Limited  Liability  Company
Agreement  (the "LLC  Agreement") of the LLC was entered into on April 21, 2006,
as  amended  from  time  to  time,  among  ICON  Capital  Corp.,  a  Connecticut
corporation ("ICON"), as manager (hereinafter referred to as the "Manager"), and
such  additional  members  as  may  be  added  pursuant  to  the  terms  thereof
(hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Additional Members").  The Manager
and the  Additional  Members are  hereinafter  referred to  collectively  as the
"Members."

     WHEREAS,  the  Manager  has the  authority  under  Section  14.1(b) to make
amendments to the LLC Agreement to cure any ambiguities in the LLC Agreement;

     WHEREAS,  the Manager has the authority  under Section 14.1(d) to delete or
add any provision of or to the LLC Agreement  required to be so deleted or added
by any state regulatory body; and

     WHEREAS, the Manager has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to
amend the LLC  Agreement for the benefit of the LLC and the Members as requested
by the Pennsylvania Securities Commission;


     NOW, THEREFORE,  the LLC Agreement is hereby amended effective  immediately
as follows:

     1. Section  3.2(f) of the LLC  Agreement is hereby  amended by deleting the
word "related" and replacing it with the word "incidental".

     2. Section  3.2(g) of the LLC  Agreement is hereby  amended and restated in
its  entirety by deleting  "miscellaneous  equipment of any other type which the
Manager  believes may be an attractive  investment" and replacing it with "other
types of equipment which the Manager  believes may be an attractive  investment,
including  future  technology  equipment,  custom made or specialized  equipment
similar to those types of equipment  described above,  data gathering  equipment
and upgrades and retrofits to existing equipment."

     The LLC Agreement of the LLC is hereby amended as so stated and the Manager
on behalf of the LLC  acknowledges  and accepts such  amendments as evidenced by
its signature below.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment No. 1 as of
the date first above written.


Manager:  ICON CAPITAL CORP.

              By:/s/ Thomas W. Martin
              -----------------------
              Name: Thomas W. Martin
              Title: Chief Operating Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
JUDGMENT
No. 04

- 14

- 00309

- CV
CITY OF EAGLE PASS , Appellant/Cross

- Appellee

v. Irma Leticia SALAZAR , Appellee/Cross

- Appellant From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 12

- 04

- 27357

- MCVJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION , JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appell ee Irma Leticia Salazar recover her costs of this appeal from appellant City of Eagle Pass.
SIGNED January 14, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
EXHIBIT 32

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 of Venoco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ TIMOTHY M. MARQUEZTimothy M. Marquez Chief Executive Officer and ChairmanNovember 5, 2008


/s/ TIMOTHY A. FICKERTimothy A. Ficker Chief Financial OfficerNovember 5, 2008


---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Theundersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofVenoco, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Issuer”), hereby certify thatthe report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of the Issuer for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2005, which accompanies this certification, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theIssuer.
| /s/ TIMOTHY  M. MARQUEZ                |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy M. Marquez                     |
| *Chief Executive Officer and Chairman* |
| August 15, 2005                        |
| /s/ DAVID B. CHRISTOFFERSON       |   |
| David B. Christofferson                |
| *Chief Financial Officer*              |
| August 15, 2005                        |

 

 

----
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NATALEE HESSELL, *

* No. 14-1091V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: July 14, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; Tetanus-diphtheria 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine; 

* shoulder injury related to vaccine

* administration (“SIRVA”).

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Schwartz, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner;

Adriana Ruth Teitel, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT1

On November 10, 2014, Natalee Hessell filed a petition under the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34 (2012), alleging 

that she suffered from adhesive capsulitis related to her receipt of a Tetanusdiphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination in her right shoulder on April

10, 2013. 

In her Rule 4(c) report, respondent stated that “compensation is appropriate 

in this case.” Resp’t’s Rep., filed July 9, 2015, at 1. Respondent added that the 

Division of Injury Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, has reviewed the facts of this case and has concluded that the 

 

1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website. 
2

alleged injury, lasting for more than six months, “is consistent with a shoulder 

injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’),” and thus that “petitioner has 

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6 (citations 

omitted).

Special masters may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to 

compensation based upon the record. A hearing is not required. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). Based upon a review of the record as a whole, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner has established that she is entitled to 

compensation for her injury. 

Accordingly, Ms. Hessell is entitled to compensation. The process for 

quantifying the amount of damages to which Ms. Hessell is entitled will be 

discussed at the status conference previously set for Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 

10:00 A.M. Eastern Time.

2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6360.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2

In anticipation of the status conference, petitioner shall begin gathering the materials 

respondent requests in her Rule 4 Report. Resp’t’s Rep. at 6-7.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25250-25251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12536]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[File No. 1-10751]


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Star Multi Care Services, Inc., Common Stock, $0.001 
Par Value)

May 14, 1996.
    Star Multi Care Services, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an 
application with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to 
withdraw the above specified security (``Security'') from listing and 
registration on the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PSE'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, since October 16, 1995 it has been listed 
on the Nasdaq National Market (``NMS'').
    In making the decision to withdraw its Security from listing on the 
PSE, the Company considered the direct and indirect costs and expenses 
attendant on maintaining the dual listing of its Security on the PSE 
and the NMS. The Company does not see any particular advantage in the 
dual trading of its Security and believes that dual listing would 
fragment the market for its Security.
    Any interested person may, on or before June 5, 1996 submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
exchanges and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission 
for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the 
information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission 
determines to order a hearing on the matter.


[[Page 25251]]


    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12536 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John BOYD, Appellant. John BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63343, 66105.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 25, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*545ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, John Boyd, appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree murder, § 565.020, RSMo Cum.Supp.1994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. Consolidated -within this direct appeal, Defendant also appeals denial of Rule 29.15 relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We find no error of law appears, and the findings of fact of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b). Further, we find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by written summary order. Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been issued to the parties for their use only.
#### Larry Darnell SUGGS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 07-93-0292-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

Jan. 11, 1995.

*408Richard Wardroup, Lubbock, for appellant.

Bill Sowder Dist. Atty., Michael West, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lubbock, for appellee.

Before REYNOLDS, C.J., and DODSON and BOYD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM. ■

Appellant Larry Darnell Suggs, represented by retained counsel Richard L. Wardroup, perfected this appeal from his conviction of the offense of burglary of a habitation, for which his punishment, enhanced by two prior *felony convictions, was*assessed at confinement for life. The appellate record was filed, but appellant’s brief, though long past due, has neither been tendered nor its absence explained, which prompts the issuance of this order.

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed not later than January 21,1994, but the time was extended to February 22, 1994 upon the motion of attorney Wardroup. The brief was not filed, and attorney Wardroup was notified on June 7, 1994 that unless a response was received within ten days satisfactorily explaining the absence of the brief, the appeal would be abated and the cause would be remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant had been deprived of a meaningful appeal because of ineffective assistance of counsel or for some other reason. No response was received, and the abatement and remand followed.

At the trial court’s hearing on August 5, 1994, the court determined that appellant desired to prosecute his appeal and that attorney Wardroup should continue to represent him. Attorney Wardroup represented to the court that he would apply to this Court, apparently for an extension of time to file appellant’s brief. No communication was received from attorney Wardroup.

Following the trial court hearing, the appeal was reinstated in this Court on August 11, 1994, at which time attorney Wardroup was notified of the reinstatement and that appellant’s brief was due to be filed no later than thirty (30) days from the date of notification. No brief was filed and, on November 17, 1994, attorney Wardroup was so notified and requested to provide an explanation. No response has been received from attorney Wardroup.

Obviously, the inaction of attorney War-droup has deprived appellant of a meaningful appeal. The unexplained and continued inaction of attorney Wardroup has also deprived appellant of the opportunity provided him by law for a resolution of the merits of the appeal. Such inaction cannot be condoned.

Therefore, it is the ORDER of this Court that attorney Wardroup shall file appellant’s brief no later than February 10, 1995. No motion for an extension of time to file the brief will be entertained. The failure of attorney Wardroup to file the brief within the time allowed will result in the immediate initiation of contempt proceedings for - the failure and refusal to obey the Court’s order.

It is so ordered.
NUMBER 13-19-00606-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

VALENTIN GAONA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 214th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Nora Longoria

Appellant, Valentin Gaona, attempts to appeal his conviction for capital murder. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

This Court’s appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent 
2

a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

Sentence in this matter was imposed on April 25, 2008. The notice of appeal at 

issue was filed on November 25, 2019. On December 3, 2019, the Clerk of this Court 

notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant 

was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten 

days from the date of receipt of the Court’s directive. The appellant has not corrected 

the defect. Additionally, appellant had previously appealed this same conviction in this 

court in cause number 13-08-00364-CR.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when 

notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended 

in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The 

time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline 

for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 

10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3. Appellant’s notice of 

appeal, filed more than ten years after sentence was imposed, was untimely, and 

accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. 

Additionally, on December 16, 2019, Appellant filed a request for court appointed 

counsel which this court construes as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a Motion 

for Production of Statement of Facts. These motions are both DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction.
3

This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion 

for Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Production of Statement of Facts and all other 

motions are hereby expressly DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

9th day of January, 2020.