alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31120-31121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15495]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Docket No. C-3638]


The Upjohn Company, et al.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and 
Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order requires, among other things, the 
respondents to divest, within 12 months, Pharmacia Aktiebolag's 9-AC 
assets, an inhibitor drug for the treatment of colorectal cancer, to a 
Commission-approved acquirer. If the transaction is not completed in 
the prescribed time, the Commission will be allowed to appoint a 
trustee.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued February 8, 1996.\2\

    \2\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

[[Page 31121]]

Ann Malester, FTC/S-2308, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Tuesday, November 7, 1995, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 60 FR 56153, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of The Upjohn Company, et al., 
for the purpose of soliciting public comment.
    Interested parties were given sixty (60) days in which to submit 
comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form of the 
order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to divest, as set 
forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition of this 
proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15495 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1643]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Advisory Mental Health Council of the National Institute of Mental 
Health on January 29, 1996. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register, Volume 61, on January 24, 1996.
    The Council was to have convened in Open session on January 29, 
1996, at 9:00 a.m. to noon and then continue with a Closed session at 
1:00 p.m. until adjournment. The Open session will now be held at 9:00 
a.m. to 10:30 a.m. During the Open session the Deputy Director, NIH, 
will present the NIH Director's Report. The Closed session will remain 
at 1:00 p.m. to adjournment.

    Dated: January 24, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-1643 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Engagement Extension Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 

 
 BioLargo, Inc. 
 Engagement Extension Agreement 
 This Engagement Extension Agreement dated as of February 1,
2009 (the “Extension”) references the Engagement Agreement and Scope Letter dated February 1, 2008 (“2008 Agreement”) by and between CFO 911 (the “Advisor)” and BioLargo, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to
which Charles K. Dargan II agreed to serve as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer. The parties desire to extend the terms of the 2008 Agreement for a period of one year, pursuant to the terms of this Extension. The 2008 Agreement and the
Extension are collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement”. 
 Except as expressly amended herein, all terms and conditions
set forth in the 2008 Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference, and continue to be in full force and effect. Effective February 1, 2009, the Advisor and the Company hereby agree to extend the Term of the engagement as set forth in
the 2008 Agreement for one year (the “Extended Term”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice. 
 During the Extended Term, the Advisor shall receive the cash compensation as set forth in the 2008 Agreement. In addition to cash compensation, the
Advisor will be issued stock options over the Extended Term, as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 an option to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, granted on February 23, 2009, at an exercise price equal to the closing price of a
share of the Company’s common stock on the grant date, such option to vest in full 90 days after grant; and 


  

	 	•	 	 options to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, each such option to be granted on the last day of each month commencing April 2009 and ending
January 2010, provided that this Agreement has not been terminated prior to each such grant date, at an exercise price equal to the closing price of a share of the Company’s common stock on each grant date, each such option to be fully vested
upon grant. 


 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 
  

			
	 CFO 911
 8055 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 405
 Playa del Rey, CA 90232
	 	 BioLargo, Inc.
 2603 Main Street, Ste. 1155
 Irvine, CA 92614


  
  

									
		 		 	
					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Charles K. Dargan II
	 		 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dennis P. Calvert

	 Name:
	 	 Mr. Charles K. Dargan II
	 		 	 Name:
	 	 Mr. Dennis P. Calvert

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer
	 		 	 Title:
	 	 President

	 Date:
	 	 February 23, 2009
	 		 	 Date:
	 	 February 23, 2009
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors of 

Interwoven, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(Nos. 333-108262, 333-110586, 333-106819, 333-104814, 333-87186, 333-88725, 333-39914, 333-42690, 333-46662, 333-49926, and 333-54250) on Forms S-8 and S-4 of Interwoven, Inc. of our report dated January 22, 2004 with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Interwoven, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2003, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Interwoven, Inc. 

 

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that refers to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” on January 1, 2002. 

 

/s/KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

March 15, 2004
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

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1782

(520) 622-6900

Michael L. Piccarreta 

State Bar No. 003962 

Email: mlp@pd-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

v.

6. Andrew Padilla,

 (Counts 1-51)

 Defendant.

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S JOINDER IN 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT STATUS REPORT 

FOR APRIL 23, 2019 STATUS HEARING

(DOC. 527)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby joins in 

Defendants’Joint Status Report for April 23, 2019 Status Hearing (Doc. 527). The factual 

and legal matters addressed in defendants’ joint status report apply with equal 

force to defendant Padilla, and defendant Padilla adopts the positions set forth in 

said status report as if fully set forth herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of April, 2019.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 532 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 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

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 18th day of April, 2019, I electronically transmitted 

the foregoing to the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Reginald Jones: Reginald.Jones@usdoj.gov

Peter S. Kozinets: Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov

John Kucera: John.Kucera@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Kevin Rapp: Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov

Thomas Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Paul Cambria: pcambira@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Revere: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Bruce Feder: bfeder@federlaw.com

James Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Michael D. Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com

Gary Lincenberg: glincenberg@birdmarella.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 532 Filed 04/18/19 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: September 9, 2021 

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr., Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained

Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present 

Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg and Gopi Panchapakesan, Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released - Present

Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

JURY TRIAL – DAY 5: 

8:41 a.m. Court is in session. Counsel and defendants are present. The jury is not present. The Court is 

informed that Defendant Andrew Padilla is not feeling well. The Court questions Mr. Padilla. The 

Court will take a brief recess to allow counsel time to search for a place and time to have Mr. Padilla 

tested for COVID-19. 8:49 a.m. Court is in recess.

9:12 a.m. Court is in session. Counsel and defendants are present. 9:19 a.m. The jury is present. The 

Court informs the jury of the situation and excuses them until 9:00 a.m. on September 10, 2021. 9:21 

a.m. The jury leaves the courtroom and Court remains in session. Discussion held regarding schedule 

and witnesses. The parties are advised that unless otherwise ordered, trial will resume on September 10, 

2021.

9:26 a.m. Court is in recess until 8:30 a.m. on September 10, 2021

Court Reporter Christine Coaley 

Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

TD: 22 mins 

Start: 8:41 AM

Stop: 9:26 AM

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp, 

Reginald Jones and Daniel Boyle

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1298 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Siga Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Date: December 9, 2009
 
 
 ARUN KUMAR
 Arun Kumar
 Chief Executive Officer,
 President and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. 96-007-2]

National Animal Damage Control Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Renewal

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has 
renewed the National Animal Damage Control Advisory Committee for a 2-
year period. The Secretary has determined that the Committee is 
necessary and in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Clay, Director, Operational 
Support Staff, ADC, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1234, (301) 734-7921 or e-mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the National Animal Damage 
Control Advisory Committee (Committee) is to advise the Secretary of 
Agriculture on policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct 
the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program. The Committee also serves as a 
public forum enabling those affected by the ADC program to have a voice 
in the program's policies.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 1996.
Wardell Townsend, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-16032 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```
CERTIFICATIONS  I, David H. Watkins, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Atna Resources Ltd. (the Company); 2.      Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4.      The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and
have: a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5.     The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of Companys board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function): a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Companys auditors any material weaknesses in internal control; andb)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls; and 6.      The Companys other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: March 1, 2005 /s/ David H. WatkinsDavid H. WatkinsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
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 CX2 Technologies., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam Reiser  Chief Executive Officer, President, Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 at the end of and for the period covered by the Report.



Date: December 12, 2007



/s/ Adam Reiser

_______________________________________

Adam Reiser Chief Executive Officer, President, Principal Executive,

Financial and Accounting Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TROY BRYANT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2813

[January 9, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara Anne 

McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 89-16457 CF10A.

Troy Lee Bryant, Bushnell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Theodore Floyd GINNERY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 18488.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

July 1, 1993.

Brad B. Baker, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for movant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Hugh L. Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

SHRUM, Judge.

The movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm.

In separate jury trials, the movant was convicted of rape in violation of § 566.030, RSMo 1978, and sodomy in violation of § 566.060, RSMo 1978. Pursuant to the juries’ recommendations he was sentenced to 13 years and 15 years respectively, the sentences to be served consecutively.

The movant’s convictions were affirmed by this court in *State v. Ginnery,*617 S.W.2d 115 (Mo.App.1981), and *State v. Ginnery,*617 S.W.2d 117 (Mo.App.1981). By separate motions, the movant sought postconviction relief under Rule 27.26 (now repealed), and this court affirmed the motion court’s denial of relief on each motion. *Ginnery v. State,*645 S.W.2d 202 (Mo.App.1983).

On appeal in this proceeding, the movant contends he was abandoned by appointed counsel. We need not reach the merits of the movant’s claim because the movant does not explain, in his motion or in his brief on appeal, why he could not have raised in his Rule 27.26 proceedings the allegations he attempts to raise under Rule 29.15.

One who was denied postconviction relief under Rule 27.26 may not seek relief under Rule 29.15 absent a showing that the matters raised in the instant motion could not have been raised in the prior one. Rule 29.15(k); *Douglas v. State,*789 S.W.2d 528, 529[3] (Mo.App.1990); *Thomas v. State,*785 S.W.2d 778, 779 (Mo.App.1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

PARRISH, C.J., and CROW, P.J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1688

ADESIJUOLA OGUNJOBI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

TOKS BANC CORP; TOKS; 5 WORLD MARKETS CORPORATION; WORLD 

MARKETS TRANSFER AGENCY CORPORATION; GLOBAL PROSPERITY 

CORPORATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE PEOPLE’S 

REPUBLIC OF CHINA; ORGANIZATION OF THE PETROLEUM 

EXPORTING COUNTRIES (OPEC); TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF THE 

UNITED STATES; FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES; 

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND; INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC 

COMMITTEE; ASSOCIATION OF TENNIS PROFESSIONALS; WOMEN’S 

TENNIS PROFESSIONALS; INTERNATIONAL TENNIS FEDERATION; 

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NATIONAL BASKETBALL 

ASSOCIATION; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL; MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER; 

CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES; IDRIS ELBA, Actor, Singer, Producer; 

SABRINA DHOWRE ELBA, Fashion Model; DAK PRESCOTT, Quarterback; 

DALLAS COWBOYS; BRIAN ALLEN, Offensive Lineman; LOS ANGELES 

RAMS; MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE, Singer, Songwriter; DEMOCRATIC 

PARTY; REPUBLICAN PARTY; MEMBERS OF THE CLASS AND 

SUBCLASSES, and those similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED NATIONS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; CENTERS FOR 

DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION,

 Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00393-HEH)

Submitted: December 31, 2020 Decided: January 12, 2021

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adesijuola Ogunjobi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Adesijuola Ogunjobi appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court correctly determined that Ogunjobi’s complaint failed to demonstrate a basis 

for subject matter jurisdiction. However, the district court erred by dismissing the 

complaint with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s 

Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal 

for ... [a] defect in subject matter jurisdiction[ ] must be one without prejudice, because a 

court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the 

merits.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment to the extent that it dismissed 

the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but vacate the judgment to the extent 

that the dismissal was with prejudice, and remand to the district court for dismissal of the 

case without prejudice. We also deny Ogunjobi’s motions to reverse the dismissal of his 

complaint and to waive submission of an informal brief. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, 

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED