alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11073]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the meeting of the 
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 
Special Emphasis Panel, May 1, 1996, which was to have taken place as a 
telephone conference call originating in Room 400C, Executive Plaza 
South, 6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville, Maryland 20852, which was 
published in the Federal Register on April 22, 1996, 61 FR 17713.
    This meeting is being cancelled due to the withdrawal of the 
application that was under consideration.

    Dated: April 30, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-11073 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 2 

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99-2 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99-2 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Section 302 Certification**

 

I, William H. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of Insmed Incorporated, certify that:

 

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Insmed Incorporated;

 

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

 
| Date: March 30, 2015 | By:    | /s/ William H. Lewis                                                   |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | **William H. Lewis**                                                   |
|                      |   | *Chief Executive   Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director* |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25732-25733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12840]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc.; Government/Industry Free Flight Steering Committee

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for an RTCA 
Government/Industry Free Flight Steering Committee meeting to be held 
June 13, 1996, starting at 1:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, in Conference Room 8ABC (8th floor).
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Welcome/Opening Remarks; (2) 
Review Summary of April 11 Meeting; (3) FAA Presentation of National 
Airspace System Architecture; (4) Program Management Team Presentation 
of Recommended Government/Industry Free Flight Action Plan

[[Page 25733]]

(Responsibilities, Priorities, Milestones); (5) Free Flight Steering 
Committee Discussion (Guidance and Direction; Plans for August 14 
Meeting); (6) Closing Remarks.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone) or (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 1996.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12840 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3501

___________________________

Herman Hampton

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Standard Insurance Company

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: July 15, 2020

Filed: August 7, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Herman Hampton appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his pro se action. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

this court affirms.

1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
Following de novo review, this court finds no basis for reversal. See Johnson

v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review). 

Hampton’s claim to recover benefits due him under the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act (ERISA) failed because the plan under which he sought long-term

disability benefits was a governmental plan not subject to ERISA. See 29 U.S.C.

§§ 1002(32) (governmental plan means plan established or maintained for its

employees by state government or instrumentality thereof), 1003(b)(1) (ERISA

provisions do not apply to governmental plans); Sanzone v. Mercy Health, 954 F.3d

1031, 1040, 1046 (8th Cir. 2020) (whether plan is ERISA plan is element of

plaintiff’s case, and plaintiff failed to state ERISA claim where plan was exempt). 

Hampton’s breach-of-contract claim failed because the defendant acted in

accordance with the contract in denying the claim for benefits after Hampton elected

a refund of his plan contributions that ended his plan participation. See Al-Khaldiya

Elecs. & Elec. Equip. Co. v. Boeing Co., 571 F.3d 754, 758-59 (8th Cir. 2009) (under

Missouri law, there is no breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

where contract expressly allows challenged actions); Dorsch v. Family Med., Inc.,

159 S.W.3d 424, 437 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (plaintiff failed to state breach of contract

claim where he essentially claimed that defendant breached contract by expressly

following it). Hampton could not avoid the consequences of electing the refund, even

if he did not fully understand the legal ramifications of doing so. See Grossman v.

Thoroughbred Ford, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (Missouri law

presumes that party had knowledge of contract he signed, and those who sign contract

may not avoid consequences of agreement on basis that they did not know what they

were signing). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hampton’s

post-judgment motion. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5

(2008); Voss v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Magnolia, 917 F.3d 618, 626 n.6 (8th Cir.

2019).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

I-many, Inc. 

Edison, New Jersey 

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-139126 and 333-148897) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-153630, 333-41362, 333-60162, 333-64974 and 333-111651) of I-many, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 30, 2009,relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of I-many, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

Woodbridge, New Jersey 

March 30, 2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED APEX AUTO GLASS, LLC A/A/O BORIE WEBB ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 1103 LT Case No. 202 0

- SC

- 017052

- O PROGRESSIV E A MERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed November 15, 2022 Nonfinal Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Amy Carter, Judge. Earl I. Higgs, Jr., of Higgs Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Lissette M. Gonzalez, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. NCI, LLC v. Progressive Select Ins. , No. 5D21-1282, 2022 WL 16702296 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 4, 2022).

SASSO , TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
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 of Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark E. Baldwin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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: August 4, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Mark E. Baldwin               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Mark E. Baldwin                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





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 Annual Report of Asia Cork Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Pengcheng Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





April 14, 2010








By: /s/ Pengcheng Chen


Pengcheng Chen, CEO
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**359 CA 10-00205** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES KALCHTHALER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE (MAUREEN T. KISSANE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MICHAEL CONNOLLY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (William D. Walsh, A.J.), entered November 17, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other things, committed respondent to a secure treatment facility.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment facility, respondent contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. We agree. We note at the outset that challenges to the jury impanelment procedures in Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceedings implicate a respondent’s fundamental right to a jury trial ( see Matter of State of New York v Muench , 68 AD3d 1677; see generally § 10.07 [b]), and the procedure set forth in CPL 270.20 governing challenges for cause in a criminal trial applies here ( see § 10.07 [b]). Pursuant to that procedure, when a prospective juror makes statements that cast serious doubt on his or her ability to render an impartial verdict, that juror must be excused for cause unless the juror provides an “unequivocal assurance that [he or she] can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” ( People v Johnson , 94 NY2d 600, 614). We agree with respondent that the prospective juror in question did not provide such an unequivocal assurance and thus that respondent should not have had to use a peremptory challenge with respect to that prospective juror ( see id. at 614-615). Inasmuch as respondent exhausted all of his peremptory challenges before the completion of jury selection, reversal is required ( see CPL 270.20 [2]; cf. People v**-2- 359 CA 10-00205** 

Lynch , 95 NY2d 243, 248). In light of our determination, we do not address respondent’s remaining contentions.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 21.1**

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT 

Advanced Analogic Technologies (Hong Kong) Ltd.,incorporated in Hong Kong on June 23, 1999. 

Advanced Analogic Technologies Corporation, incorporated in the BritishVirgin Islands on September 21, 1999. 

Advanced Analogic Technologies Holdings, Inc., incorporated in the BritishVirgin Islands on July 24, 2001. 

Advanced Analogic Technologies Japan, Incorporated, incorporated in Japan onAugust 5, 2003. 

Advanced Analogic Technologies (EMEA) AB, incorporated in Sweden on February 28, 2005.

Advanced Analogic Technologies Macao Commercial Offshore Limited, incorporated in Macau on March 14, 2005.

Advanced Analogic Technologies (France) SARL, incorporated in France on November 3, 2005. 

Analog Power Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., incorporated in the People’s Republic of China on January 23, 2006.

Elite Micro Devices (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., incorporated in the People’s Republic of China on June 21, 2007.

Elite Micro Devices Inc., incorporated in the Cayman Islands on September 26, 2006.
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 of NextWave Wireless LLC (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q ("Form 10-Q") for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, George C. Alex,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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)      The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


    /s/ George C. Alex
---------------------------------------------
George C. Alex
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2006
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 of Host Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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:  February 14, 2006


/s/ William Stewart
---------------------------------------
William Stewart, Principal Financial Officer
ADDITIONAL  AGREEMENT  TO  LEASE  CONTRACT  NO.  69/2000

between Research and Development Centre, FEZ Witten GmbH, Alfred-Herrhausen-Str.
44,  58455  Witten

and

GlukoMediTech  AG  Witten,  Alfred-Herrhausen-Str.  44,  58455  Witten

concerning  the  lease  of  additional  rooms.

                          1 - SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTRACT

From  01  JUNE  2000  on,  there  are let the following rooms on the basement of
Building  Part  A  numbered  U 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 with a main floor space of 99.76
sq.m.  as well as a share of ancillary floor space and circulation area of 24.94
sq.m., i.e. an overall leased area of 124.70 sq.m. The annexed site plan becomes
an  integral  part  of  the  Lease  Contract.

                           2 - RENT AND ANCILLARY COSTS

The  basic  net  rent  for  the  above-mentioned  leased  rooms  amounts  to:
          DM  10.00  x  124.70  sq.m.  =     DM  1,247.00
plus  advance  on  operating  and  ancillary  costs:
          DM   5.50  x  124.70  sq.m.  =     DM    685.85
                                             ------------
Total  rent                                  DM  1,932.85
plus  VAT  of  presently  16  %              DM    309.26
                                             ------------
Total  rent                                  DM  2,242.11

                               3 - SECURITY PAYMENT

The security to be provided can also be provided in the form of a declaration of
suretyship  by a bank or savings bank; it is increased by DM 2,500.00 and is due
and  payable  before  commencing  the  lease.

                             4 - FURTHER STIPULATIONS

All  of  the  other  provisions  of  the  Lease  Contract No. 69/00 shall remain
completely  in  force. The parties undertake to attach this Additional Agreement
firmly  to  their  respective copy of the Lease Contract and otherwise not plead
non-adherence  to  the  written  form.


Witten,  07  June  2000
/signature/            /signature/
FEZ  Witten  GmbH     GlukoMediTech  AG
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Graham,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Continental Bancorp, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04806-PHX-DMF

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s1 Report and 

Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 

11.) To date, no objection has been filed.

After considering the Report and Recommendation, the Court will grant 

Magistrate Judge Duncan’s recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 

service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific

written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 

object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo

 1 On June 25, 2018, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine.
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 

findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure 

to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 

propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.

DISCUSSION2

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 11.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice based

upon Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

Dated this 29th day of June, 2018.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

 2

The procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. (Doc. 11.)
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Harold Lee High, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Mark Napier, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-17-00565-TUC-DCB 

ORDER 

The Court denied Petitioner habeas relief and entered Judgment on May 2, 2019. 

The Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 14, 2019. On May 28, 2019, the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals issued on Order directing this Court “to issue or decline to issue 

a certificate of appealability in this appeal, which appears to arise under 28 U.S.C. 2254.” 

(Doc. 48.) The Court treated the case as arising under 28 U.S.C. 2241 because the 

Petitioner is out of custody and, instead, issued a certificate of appealability based on a 

finding that any appeal would be taken in good faith. Correspondingly, the Court issues a 

certificate of appealability, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that issuance of a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are GRANTED, based on the Court’s findings as 

follow: 

///// 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. The Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right with respect to Claim 3: Double Jeopardy, and 

2. The dismissal of Claims 1, 3 and 4 was justified by a plain procedural bar 

and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith notify the 

parties of the entry of this Order regarding Certificate of Appealability and In Forma 

Pauperis Status on Appeal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this 

Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Dated this 30th day of May, 2019.