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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent No. 6,451,309 entitled “Prophylactic and Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies,” issued September 17, 2002; and U.S. Patent No. 6,620,412 entitled, “Prophylactic and Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies,” issued September 16, 2003, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,451,309, and foreign rights to BioFactura, Inc., with its principal place of business at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, Maryland 20850. 

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see                     **ADDRESSES**                    ).                 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-18705 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60066

Summary Calendar

DORA LUZ OCHOA-BARRIOS

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A00 109 691

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dora Luz Ochoa-Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the

denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Ochoa-Barrios failed to

appear for her removal hearing in January 2006 and was ordered removed in

absentia. She filed a motion to reopen in July 2006.

Ochoa-Barrios argues that her order of removal should be rescinded

because she did not receive notice of the hearing. She acknowledges that she

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 13, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60066

2

was served with and signed the Notice to Appear, but she contends that the

pages ofthe Notice to Appear that she received did not include the page with the

hearing date. She contends that she was not aware of a hearing date. OchoaBarrios argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) did not address her contention,

instead relying on copies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) forms,

not the forms that she actually received.

The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with

factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence and determinations of law

reviewed de novo. De Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir. 1997). The IJ

did not abuse his discretion by relying on the fact that Ochoa-Barrios

acknowledged personal service with her signature, rather than on the unsworn

allegation in the motion to reopen filed by her attorney that she did not actually

receive the paperwork. See Maknojiya v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 588, 589 (5th Cir.

2005) (holding that when written notice is sent by regular, not certified, mail,

the alien may prove that he did not receive the notice by his own statement in

an affidavit). The unsworn and unsupported assertions in the motion to reopen

are not sufficient to overcome her signed certificate of service. See Thompson v.

INS, 51 F.3d 1045, * 2 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting authorities holding that an

attorney’s statements in a brief or motion do not constitute evidence).

Because Ochoa-Barrios has not established that the denial of her motion

to reopen was an abuse of discretion, the petition for review is DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6432** 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LORRAINE BLACKWELL LEWIS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00316

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : July 15, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lorraine Blackwell Lewis , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Lorraine Blackwell Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying h er self

- styled “Writ of Habeus [sic] Corpus for Evidenciary [sic] Hearing” for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “ [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 , 2 1 4 ( 2007 ). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on November 1, 2012 . The notice of appeal was filed on March 1 9, 2013 . Because Lewis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reope ning of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### G. G. JONES v. Robert KIRK.

No. 1674.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 10, 1938.

John R. Parsons, of Wakeeney, Kan., for appellant.

Paul W. Applegate, of Wakeeney, Kan., for appellee.

'■ Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellee, at, appellant’s costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-31175.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 18, 2003.

*382Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

James H. Looney, court-appointed counsel for Edward D. Mitchell, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Mitchell has filed a response arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue at sentencing that Mitchell was not a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).

Our review of the briefs and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ISAIAH BARKER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 495 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Team Nation Holdings Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | (i)
  the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal
  quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
  requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii)
  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                               

|                      |     |                              
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|Date: August 19, 2009 | By: | /s/ Daniel J. Duffy          
|                      |     |                              
|                      |     | Daniel J. Duffy              
|                      |     | Principal Financial
  Officer

This certification has not
been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4293 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4293

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for public disclosure 
 of the amounts of Federal funds used to conduct field examinations of 
                        appropriation estimates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1996

 Mr. Brownback (for himself, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Hoke) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for public disclosure 
 of the amounts of Federal funds used to conduct field examinations of 
                        appropriation estimates.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF AMOUNTS USED FOR FIELD EXAMINATIONS OF 
              APPROPRIATION ESTIMATES.

    Section 1108(g) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The head of each agency shall publish in the Federal Register 
on a monthly basis notice containing the following:
            ``(A) All amounts of the agency (if any) made available 
        during the previous month for field examinations of 
        appropriations estimates.
            ``(B) The purpose of each such field examination.
            ``(C) The location at which the field examination was 
        conducted.
            ``(D) The identity of all Members of Congress, 
        congressional staff, and officers and employees of the agency 
        who participated in the field examination.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wilton M. ELLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Wendel P. SIMPSON, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 14195.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 19, 1932.

William Donnaud, of New Orleans, for appellant.

A. E. Rainold, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount expended in repairing his Pierce Arrow automobile, damaged when, as a result of áttempt-ing to avoid defendant’s car, plaintiff’s car crashed into a tree standing on the beach side of the front highway at Pass Christian, Miss.

He charges that, as his automobile, driven by him, was following a Chevrolet, owned by defendant and driven by his daughter, the said daughter of defendant gave a signal indicating her intention of pulling over to the left side of the road, and that, just as he was about to‘ turn his Pierce Arrow slightly' to the right'in an effort to pass the Chevrolet, the "latter unexpectedly turned to the right across the road, and that this made it necessary for him to swerve suddenly to the left in the hope of going around the Chevrolet on that side. He avers that there was an oak tree on that side, and in avoiding the Chevrolet he struck the tree and damaged his car.

The occupants of the Simpson car testified that Miss Simpson gave a- hand signal, indicating that she was going to pull over to the left, and that she then suited her action to the signal,.and, aware of the fact that the Pierce Arrow of plaintiff was coming up from the rear, stopped and waited for it to pass.

The controversy hinges upon whether or not Miss Simpson stopped parallel with the road, leaving ample space for the other car to pass, which she contends she did, or turned suddenly across the road, as plaintiff avers.

The evidence leaves us well convinced that Miss Simpson’s car remained entirely on the side of the road, and that plaintiff could easily have passed to the right had he been willing to reduce his speed slightly and wait a second or so .until he could be certain of the intention of the driver of the car ahead of him.

The judge of the trial court was correct in holding that the driver of the defendant’s car was not at fault.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Alan Schaffner, Managing Director of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:
 
 The Company’s Form 10-Q/A Report for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Alan Schaffner
 Alan Schaffner, Managing Director
 Dated: January 22, 2014
VIRGINIA:

 In the Court of Appeals of Virginia on Tuesday the 26th day of July, 2022.

Paul H. Lundmark, Appellant,

against Record No. 0677-21-2

Circuit Court No. CR21-299-00M

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Before Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys, Beales, Huff, O’Brien, AtLee, Malveaux, 

Athey, Fulton, Ortiz, Causey, Friedman, Chaney, Raphael, Lorish, Callins and White

On April 12, 2022, the Court granted the appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc and ordered 

briefing as to whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case. 

Having received the briefs of the appellant, Henrico County, and the Attorney General, and 

considering that Henrico County has now expressly waived any defect associated with the notice of appeal, 

the Court has determined that it has jurisdiction over this case. See Nicholson v. Commonwealth, 300 Va. 17, 

24 (2021). Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated on the docket of the Court. The time for filing the opening 

brief in this case shall recommence from the date of entry of this order.

Upon further consideration whereof, the style of this case hereby is amended to reflect that Henrico 

County is the proper appellee and shall hereinafter be styled as Paul H. Lundmark v. Henrico County. The 

Commonwealth’s Attorney for Henrico County represents the appellee, and the Attorney General is relieved 

of any further involvement in this case.

A Copy,

Teste:

A. John Vollino, Clerk

 original order signed by a deputy clerk of the 

By: Court of Appeals of Virginia at the direction

 of the Court

Deputy Clerk 

PUBLISHED
#### Gene LATIMORE, Employee/Appellant, v. FARGON FOUNDRY, INC., Employer/Respondent, and Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Insurer/Respondent.

No. 69605.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 22, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 17,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 21,1997.

Harry J. Nichols, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeffrey W. Wright, Moser *&*Marsalek, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals the denial of his claim for permanent total disability by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). Claimant also appeals the Commis*720sion’s modification of the award of the Administrative Law Judge for temporary total disability. We affirm. The findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Stratasys, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-93362) of our report dated
February 3, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Stratasys, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended
December 31, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB.


                                           /s/ Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.
                                           Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.

Roseland, New Jersey
March 27, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ORYX TECHNOLOGY CORP. FOR THE YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 28,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           1,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      814
<ALLOWANCES>                                       118
<INVENTORY>                                        384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,928
<PP&E>                                             899
<DEPRECIATION>                                     465
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,316
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         89
<COMMON>                                        20,157
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,503
<SALES>                                          4,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,642
<CGS>                                            3,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (691)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>