alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18020]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

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. 5,983,557, issued 
November 16, 1999, entitled ``Lethal Mosquito Breeding Container,'' 
U.S. Patent No. 6,185,861 issued February 13, 2001, entitled ``Lethal 
Mosquito Breeding Container,'' U.S. Patent No. 6,389,740, issued May 
21, 2002, entitled ``Lethal Mosquito Breeding Container,'' and foreign 
rights to SpringStar, Inc., with its principal place of business at 
17669 128th Place NE., Woodinville, WA 98072.

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. E8-18020 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
Exhibit 21.1(4)

                    ELECTRONIC ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION
                                   For
                    FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

                                    Article I

The name of the Limited Liability Company is:

      INTERFUND INVESTMENT FUND I. LLC


                                   Article II

The street address of the principal office of the Limited Liability Company is:

      7100 Camino Real Blvd.
      402
      BOCA RATON, FL. US 33433

The mailing address of the Limited Liability Company is:

      7100 Camino Real Blvd.
      402
      BOCA RATON, FL. US 33433

                                   Article III

The purpose for which this Limited Liabihtv Company is organized is:

      ANY AND ALL LAWFUL BUSINESS.



                                   Article IV

The name and Florida street address of the registered agent is:

      BRANDON BROWN P.L.
      7100 CAMINO REAL BLVD.
      SUITE 402
      BOCA RATON, FL.  33433

Having been named as registered  agent and to accept  service of process for the
above  stated  limited   habilitv  company  at  the  place  designated  in  this
certificate.  I hereby accept the  appointment as registered  agent and agree to
act in this  capacity.  I further  agree to comply  with the  provisions  of all
statutes relating lo the proper and complete performance oi'rny duties, and I am
familiar with and accept the obligations of my position as registered agent.


 Registered Agent Signature:    ELIZABFTH BRANDON-BROWN


<PAGE>

                                      Article V              L03000048565
                                                             FILED 8:00 AM
                                                             December 01   2003
                                                             Sec. Of State
The name and address of managing members/managers are:
      Title:  MGR
      CAPITOL MANAGEMENT, LLC
      7100 CAMINO REAL BLVD.
      BOCA RATON, FL. 33433 US

Signature of member or an authorized representative of a member

Signature: ELIZABETH BRANDON-BROWN
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bruce ASLIN, Appellant. Bruce J. ASLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 46806, WD 49223.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and KENNEDY and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal of convictions of two counts of statutory rape, § 566.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, two counts of incest, § 568.020, RSMo 1986, and the trial court’s denial, after evidentiary hearing, of appellant’s Rule 29.15 postconviction motion.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**


**ACTING
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**


**AVRO
      ENERGY INC.**


**FORM
      10-QSB FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Mike
      P. Kurtanjek , am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer
      of Avro Energy Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering
      this
      certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Company for the nine month period ended September 30, 2007 and filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                December 13, 2007By:
                */s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek*
              MIKE
                  P. KURTANJEK
              Chief
                Executive Officer, President, acting Chief Financial Officer, acting
                Principal Accounting Officer and Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20402-01-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

PAUL JOHN NUGENT,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA AGREEMENT

UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on July 1, 2010, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder

pursuant to the Defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report [Dkt. # 53] on July 1,

2010, recommending acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea. Either party may serve and file written

objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination

of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party

objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 53] is ADOPTED.

Case 1:09-cr-20402-TLL-CEB ECF No. 55, PageID.229 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of unlawful use of a

communications facility, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt.

# 50] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 20, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 20, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:09-cr-20402-TLL-CEB ECF No. 55, PageID.230 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of John Smith, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[678 NYS2d 917]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered November 13, 1997 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole revoking petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner was released on parole from a sentence imposed following his conviction of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Thereafter, petitioner’s parole was revoked based upon his plea of guilty of failing to report to his parole officer and he was reincarcerated without further consideration for parole for 36 months. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s challenge to his parole revocation, prompting this appeal.

Decisions by the Board of Parole constitute discretionary acts and are not subject to review if made in accordance with the law *(see,*Executive Law § 259-i [5]; *Matter of Gray v Travis,*239 AD2d 631). Notwithstanding the fact that this was petitioner’s first parole violation since being released 41 months earlier, we reject his contention that the 36-month hold was excessive. Furthermore, the Board appropriately considered the nature and circumstances of the instant offense in assess*956ing the time for his reincarceration *(see generally, Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept. of Parole,*212 AD2d 699). Petitioner’s assertion that the Board improperly relied on a prior youthful offender adjudication is not supported by the record. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
* 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. 97-40201

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH BELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CR-22-12

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Bell pleaded guilty to count 28 of an indictment

charging him with possession with intent to distribute and

distribution of cocaine base and has appealed his sentence. Bell

contends that the district court erred in considering information

provided by an unidentified confidential informant in calculating

Bell’s base offense level when the only corroborating information

was supplied by Bell during a confidential debriefing. Bell

failed to present any evidence showing that the information used
No. 97-40201

-2-

to calculate his sentence was untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable. 

In the absence of such evidence, the presentence report provided

a sufficient evidentiary basis for the factual determination, and

the district court did not err in accepting the information as

true. United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 274 (5th Cir.

1995). 

AFFIRMED.
|Exhibit 99.2


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 annual report on Form 10-K of Arch Wireless, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, J.
Roy Pottle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:   March 28, 2003 |  | /s/ J. Roy PottleJ. Roy Pottle    Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 10.1

  

   

    

   

    

  

    AMENDMENT TO

    RETENTION PAYMENT AGREEMENT

    

    

    

    

    This Amendment to Retention Payment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of February 6, 2020 by
      and between Contango ORE, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and ____________________ (the “Executive”).

    

    

    WITNESSETH:

    

    

    WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into that certain Retention Payment Agreement effective as of February 6, 2020 (the “Agreement”);

    

    

    WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Agreement allows the Agreement to be amended by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom such amendment is
      sought to be enforced; and

    

    

    WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to extend the CIC Period;

    

    

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

    

    

    1.            Section



        1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

    

    

    Upon the consummation of a Change in Control (the “CIC Date”) during the period from the Effective Date
      until August 6, 2025 (the “CIC Period”), the Company, or its successor, shall pay to the Executive a one-time cash bonus in a lump sum amount of [●] (the “Retention
          Payment”) within 30 days following the CIC Date; provided that either (i) the Executive remains continuously employed by, or in the service of, the Company from the Effective Date until the CIC Date, or (ii) the Executive’s employment
      or service with the Company is terminated by the Company without Cause within 60 days prior to the CIC Date.

    

    

    2.            Except



        as otherwise specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

    

    

    

    

    [Signature Page Follows]

     

    

    
      
        


    

    

    

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has executed the Amendment and the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its
      duly authorized officer, to be effective as of the date set forth above.

     

    

     

    

    	

          	
            EXECUTIVE:

          
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Signature: ________________________________________ 

          
	 	 
	 	Name: ___________________________________________ 
	 	 
	 	Date: ____________________________________________ 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	COMPANY: 

          
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
            By: /s/ Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse

          
	 	 
	 	
            Name: Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse

             
	 	 
	 	
            Its: President and CEO

            
	 	 
	 	
            Date: February 6, 2020
#### HARRIS CALORIFIC CO. v. MARRA. MARRA v. HARRIS CALORIFIC CO.

Nos. 6549-6551, 6545.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 7, 1938.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1938.

Stebbins, Blenko & Parmelee, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Edward Hoopes, III, and Walter J. Blenko, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for Harris Calorific Co.

Christy & Wharton, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Bayard PI. Christy and R. T. M. Mc-Cready, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for Marra.

Before DAVIS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

These are cross-appeals from decrees of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff is the owner by assignment of six patents, Harris patents, 1,571,004, 1,568,331, 1,547,388, and Campbell patents, 1,751,447, 1,835,845, and 1,920,965, all relating to improvements in blowpipes employed in welding and cutting metals. The plaintiff filed three bills of complaint, charging defendant with direct infringement of Harris patent, 1,568,331, and contributory infringement of all, six patents, as well as unfair trade practices. The cases were consolidated for trial and resulted in a decree .in favor of the plaintiff on the charge of direct infringement and in favor of the defendant on all other charges. Plaintiff and defendant have each appealed. In defendant’s appeal No. 6545, the defendant contends thaf he did not infringe because the blowpipe tip which he *871manufactures and sells differs from the tip described in the patent. The District Court found that while there are differences in the manufacturing steps which were employed in the construction of the blowpipe tip described in the patent and the blowpipe tip sold by the defendant, the resultant structures are the same.

We are in entire accord with the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant infringed Harris patent, 1,568,331, but direct that the decree be augmented by the inclusion of claim 6, as well as claims 5 and 7 of that patent, as infringed.

In plaintiff’s appeal No. 6551 the plaintiff contends that the doctrine of replaceable parts announced in Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U.S. 109, 9 How. 109, 13 L.Ed. 66, has no application to the facts in the case. It contends that the necessity to replace the tips arises, not because the tips wear out, but because they are abused by careless and incompetent workers and destroyed by accidents. We do not agree that an article may be deemed perishable only if it wears out in spite of careful and skillful use. If it is usual for a material number of accidents to occur in carrying on the trade, if it is customary for hasty workmen to accelerate the completion of their tasks by rough handling of their blowpipes, if the blowpipes are frequently used by unskilled welders, and if these practices result in or contribute to the destruction of the tips, then we are of the opinion that the tips may be deemed perishable through use. Judge Schoonmaker has discussed the issues of fact and of law with such painstaking thoroughness that we affirm on his opinion.

The decrees was affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

        O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

         O'Sullivan has an incentive compensation plan in which its executive
officers and certain other management employees of O'Sullivan participate. The
Compensation Committee recommends, and the Board of Directors adopts, the plan's
goals and target award levels, which can vary from year to year. The plan's
goals may include goals for O'Sullivan's earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization, sales, efficient use of working capital and other
factors; each goal may have a different weighting. Individual goals may also
form a portion of the goal for each individual participant. For each goal, the
Board sets a threshold level, a target level and a maximum level. If the
threshold level is not achieved with respect to a goal, no award is made for
that goal. Individual target amounts are set by the Board as a percentage of
each executive officer's salary.

         After the end of a fiscal year, O'Sullivan's achievement will be
measured with respect to each goal. Incentive compensation will be calculated
based upon results for the fiscal year compared with the goals. The calculations
will then be used to compute each participant's incentive compensation for the
fiscal year and will be paid to the participant.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 57

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar limitation

on the exclusion under section 911 of such Code.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ARCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the dollar limitation on the exclusion under section 911

of such Code.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON SECTION

4 911 EXCLUSION.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Subparagraph (A) of section

6 911(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to limitation on foreign earned income) is amended by

8 striking ‘‘$70,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’.
2

•HR 57 IH

1 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—Paragraph (2) of

2 section 911(b) of such Code is amended by adding at the

3 end the following new subparagraph:

4 ‘‘(D) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—In the

5 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar

6 year after 1995, the dollar amount contained in

7 subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an

8 amount equal to—

9 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by

10 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de11 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal12 endar year in which the taxable year be13 gins by substituting ‘calendar year 1994’

14 for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph

15 (B) thereof.

16 Any increase determined under the preceding

17 sentence shall be rounded to the nearest mul18 tiple of $50.’’

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

21 December 31, 1994.

Æ