alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.7

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
                                       OF
                           INDIANA BROADCASTING, LLC

                                      NAME

         The name of the limited liability corporation is Indiana Broadcasting,
LLC.

                          REGISTERED AGENT AND OFFICE

         The address of the initial registered office of this corporation is
1013 Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware, 19805; and the name of the registered
agent of the corporation in the State of Delaware is the Corporation Service
Company.

Dated: January 23, 1998                
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                      Gayle C. Toney
#### S. S. Watkins, etc., *v.*Wm. Summers & Co.

Judgment — Description of Land.

Where a petition and a judgment described land as the land on “Yellow Bank Island,1’” the description is too- indefinite and uncertain to enable the commissioner to execute a judgment without danger of injustice to the owners and probable sacrifice of their rights.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 17, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

We see no objection to the personal judgment against Watkins; but the description given in the petition as well as the judgment of the interest adjudged sold to her, in the land' on “Yellow Bank Island” is, according to previous decisions of this court, too indefinite and uncertain to enable the- commissioner to execute the judgment without great danger of injustice to the -owners of the property and probable sacrifice of their rights. The petition and judgment should have described the property and interests to be sold with reasonable certainty and the judgment should have directed a sale of all or so much as was necessary only to pay the debt and costs.

Wherefore, the judgment being inconsistent with this opinion, so far as it directs a sale of the land, it is, to that extent only, reversed *342and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Ray, Walker, for appellants.*

*Owen, for appellees.*

The personal judgment is not disturbed.
null

493.76743
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA ) AHRAF SALIM ABDESSALAM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 06-1761 (ESH) 

### v. ) ) BARACK H. OBAMA 

### etal. ) ) Defendants. ) )

2. Does not, why not? ORDER Two weeks before the next hearing, the government is to file answers to the following questions andprovide the requested documents.
1. How many detainees did identify as having fought at ToraBora? Of those, how many were Libyan? Provide their detainee numbers. have a detainee number and, if
3. What information, ifany, did provide regarding
__ and
. Provide any documents containing this information. 4. Does the government have anypictures ofpetitionerat or afterhis capture? Ifso, produce them. 5. Did_admitto having fought at Tora Bora? Ifso, provide the interview containing this admission. A conference call will be held onMarch 13,2009, at 2:15 P.M. to discuss further scheduling. SO ORDERED.

### -------- 

# --/s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge DATE: March 6, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

ABC Corporation I, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04806

Honorable Thomas M.

Durkin

The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A", et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, October 7, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Defendants

Gaodesang−US, Gyroor, and Fengchi−US move to dismiss. They argue first that Plaintiffs

have only conclusorily alleged that Defendants are related through the entity Gyroor−US

and that each allegedly related defendant has sold an allegedly infringing product, as

opposed to different products not mentioned in the complaint. But in support of their

motion to amend the complaint to add these defendants, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration

with exhibits analyzing the Amazon Standard Identification Numbers for the relevant

products, thus making a plausible showing that these defendants have sold products that

infringe Plaintiffs' patents. See R. [227]. Defendants' first argument is rejected for that

reason. Defendants next argue their products are based on valid third−party design patents

and therefore cannot infringe the Patents−in−Suit. As the Court held in an order yesterday,

the problem with this argument is that the "existence of one's own patent does not

constitute a defense to infringement of someone else's patent." R. [443] at 1 (quoting

Bio−Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

Furthermore, to the extent Defendants' patents are relevant to whether they have infringed

Plaintiffs' patents, that is an affirmative defense that should not be decided on the

pleadings. "Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned

against construing claim language to resolve, at the pleading stage, what are effectively

non−infringement arguments." Pressure Specialist, Inc. v. Next Gen Mfg., Inc., 2018 WL

572834, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)). Therefore, defendants#039; motions to dismiss

[364] [365] and [366] are denied. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 449 Filed: 10/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:12634
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 449 Filed: 10/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:12635
#### John Welsh *v.*Lou., Cin. & Lex. R. Co.

Limitation of Actions — Personal Injuries — Suspension of Statute.

'To- suspend the operation of the statute of limitations against an action for personal injuries, plaintiff should have alleged and proven facts showing either that the defendant had prevented him from -suing, or by agreement, contract, or understanding had induced him to refrain from -bringing suit.

Limitation of Actions- — Personal Injuries — When Statute Begins to Run.

The statute of limitations begins to run against -an action for personal injuries on the day of the injury, and the fact that plaintiff did not discover the extent of his injuries until -several months thereafter can not relieve him from the operation of the statute.

APPEAL FROM; KENTON 'CIRCUIT COURT.

January 16, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

There is nothing in this record from' which we feel authorized to conclude that there existed between the parties any such contract *331or agreement as would suspend the running of the statute of limitation.

*Fisks, for appellant.*

Appellant states that immediately after being injured, the railroad company caused him to be taken to a hospital at Covington, paid for his board and the attention bestowed upon him, and also employed a surgeon to give him. medical attention and to restore, if possible, his injured leg to such an extent as to render him able to take care of himself in the future, and that at the end of eight months such attention was withdrawn. He does not claim1 that he received this care and attention in pursuance to any contract or understanding with the company that he was to be so taken care of, or that he was to be restored at its expense, as would enable him' to earn a living, but leaves it to be inferred that it was a mere gratuity.

To suspend the operation of the statute he should have alleged and proved such a state of case as would show, either that the company had prevented him. from suing, or by an agreement, contract or understanding had induced him. to refrain from doing so. And upon this latter hypothesis it would be necessary to place the company in such a position that the plea of limitation upon its part would amount to a fraud.

The fact that appellant did not discover the extent of his injuries for several months can not avail him'. The cause of action occurred, the day the injury was inflicted, and from that day the statute commenced to run.

The peremptory instruction to find for the appellee was proper.

Judgment *affirmed.*

-, *for appellee.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

# **I, Jonathan C. Coon, certify that:**

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof 1-800 CONTACTS, INC.;

 

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

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:  May 12, 2005 | /s/ Jonathan C. Coon    |   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. SHAKARA THOMAS CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-10333 D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00468-EJG-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Edward J. Garcia, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 11, 2011 ** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Defendant Shakara Thomas Carter seeks to appeal from the district court’s entry of judgment. Reviewing Defendant ’s unpreserved objection for plain error, United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004), we affirm. 

# FILED
AUG 15 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 The district court erred by failing to a dvise Defendant of some of his trial rights, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(E). But that error did not affect Defendant’s substantia l rights. We have reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that Defendant has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty. See Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. at 76 (holding that "a defendant is obliged to show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea"). Because Defendant waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement, he may not appeal his sentence. See United States v. Portillo-Cano , 192 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that "waivers of appeal must stand or fall with the agreement of which they are a part" (internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED.
#### ROBERT E. TIMMONS, JR., Employee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer; Self-insurer

No. 377PA96

(Filed 9 May 1997)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 123 N.C. App. 456, 473 S.E.2d 356 (1996), affirming in part an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, filed 26 May 1995, and remanding to the Industrial Commission the matter of costs for clarification and such further orders with respect thereto as may be proper. This Court allowed defendant’s petition for discretionary review on 7 November 1996. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 April 1997.

*Folger and Folger, by Fred Folger, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by D. Sigsbee Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellant.*

*Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P., by George D. Kimberly, Jr., on behalf of North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                            SUMMARY OF ORAL AGREEMENT
                   WITH SAFETY COMPONENTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Zapata Corporation, Inc. agreed with Safety Components International, Inc.
("Safety Components") to make a capital contribution in the amount of $1,000,000
as an inducement for Safety Components' management to continue employment
through the completion of the proposed sale of Zapata's 4,162,394 shares of
common stock in Safety Components to the WLR Recovery Fund II, L.P and WLR
Recovery Fund III, L.P. (collectively, the "WLR Recovery Funds") pursuant to a
stock purchase agreement dated September 23, 2005, as amended.

At this time there is no written agreement between the parties with respect to
the capital contribution to Safety Components. The $1,000,000 capital
contribution would be made directly to Safety Components and, thereafter, would
be distributed by the Safety Components compensation committee as bonuses to
certain executive officers and key employees. The obligation to make payment of
the capital contribution to Safety Components is subject to the satisfactory
completion of certain conditions, including that the transactions contemplated
in the stock purchase agreement be consummated and that the Chief Executive
Officer, President and Vice President-Finance and the other management members
of Safety Components remain in the employ of Safety Components through the
closing of the transactions contemplated by the stock purchase agreement.
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21E0010. JASMINE LEIGH DOURESSEAUX v. AARON CHRISTIAN THOMAS.

Applicant Jasmine Leigh Douresseaux has filed an emergency motion requesting the stay of the trial court’s order holding her in civil and criminal contempt for failing to comply with a prior child custody order. Douresseaux asserts that, because she properly filed a notice of appeal of the contempt order and applied for supersedeas, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on a contempt hearing, which according to the record before us is set for September 17, 2020. Generally, “a supersedeas suspends all further proceedings in the suit in which the judgment superseded is rendered. . . . Under this rule, the supersedeas, during its pendency, prevents any steps to enforce or carry into effect the judgment.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Simmons v. Harms , 287 Ga. 176, 181 (3) (a) (695 SE2d 38) (2010). OCGA § 5-6-13 (a) provides that “[a] judge of any trial court or tribunal having the power to adjudge and punish for contempt shall grant to any person convicted of or adjudged to be in contempt of court a supersedeas upon application and compliance with the provisions of law as to appeal and certiorari, where the person also submits, within the time prescribed by law, written notice that he intends to seek review of the conviction or adjudication of contempt. It shall not be in the discretion of any trial court judge to grant or refuse a supersedeas in cases of contempt.” It appears from the record before us that Douresseaux timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s contempt order and properly applied for supersedeas under OCGA § 5-6-13 (a). Accordingly, Douresseaux’s motion is herebyGRANTED, September 16, 2020and the trial court’s enforcement of the contempt order is STAYED until the

resolution of Douresseaux’s appeal thereof.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk. 09/16/2020
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 on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Lowell W. Giffhorn, 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 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, as amended; and

   2)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.


                                                 /S/ LOWELL W. GIFFHORN
                                                 ----------------------
                                                 Name:  Lowell W. Giffhorn
                                                 Title:  Exec. V.P. and CFO
                                                 Date: January 14, 2005
Federated Testing Tool Testing Environment ISO Changelog 
v1: 
-first release of Federated Testing with support for testing disk imaging, forensic media preparation, 
forensic string search, hardware write blocking, and mobile forensics data extraction tools
v1-1:
-Added 508 text to all test reports.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  In connection with the annual report of Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Liu Zhongyi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.  March 30, 2010
        /s/ Liu Zhongyi
 Liu Zhongyi, CEO, President and principal executive officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting 

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

1 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Virtual Meeting

Connection Info Sent Under Separate Cover

Registration Information Below

DRAFT AGENDA

1 p.m.–1:15 p.m.

15 minutes

Meeting Opening/Logistics Cheryl Gendron, NIST MEP

1:15 p.m.–1:40 p.m.

25 minutes

Welcome and Introductions

Opening Remarks

Welcome from NIST Leadership

Board and Audience Introductions

Matt Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board 

Dave Rowland, OK MEP

Scott Ritz, OK MEP Board of Directors

Walt Copan, NIST

Carroll Thomas, NIST MEP

1:40 p.m.–2:25 p.m.

45 minutes

NIST MEP Senior Management Update 

Board Feedback and Discussion

Carroll Thomas

Rob Ivester, NIST MEP

2:25 p.m.–2:50 p.m.

25 minutes

CARE Act Update

Board Feedback and Discussion

Rob Ivester

2:50 p.m.–3:10 p.m.

20 minutes

Meeting Break

3:10 p.m.- 3:50 p.m.

40 minutes

MEP National NetworkTM Current & 

Future Strategic Planning

Board Feedback and Discussion

Carroll Thomas

3:50 p.m.-4:30 p.m.

40 minutes

Wrap Up/Public Comments Matt Newman

Carroll Thomas

Rev. 5/29/2020 Agenda Subject to Change

Meeting Open to the Public/Registration Required

All attendees will be participating via webinar; please contact Ms. Cheryl Gendron at 301-975-2785 or 

cheryl.gendron@nist.gov for detailed instructions on how to join the online meeting. All registration

requests must have been received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Thursday, May 28, 2020.
Exhibit 32.1




Mechanical Technology,
Incorporated Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)




In connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mechanical Technology, Incorporated (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peng K. Lim, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and
(b)), that, to my knowledge:




(1)
            
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and(2)
            
            The
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of
the






March 31, 2010
            /s/ Peng K.
    LimPeng K. LimChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


---