alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.6



            FOURTH AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT


     The Rights Agreement dated as of April 17, 1995 between
Devon Energy Corporation and BankBoston, N.A. (formerly, The
First National Bank of Boston (Massachusetts)), as amended
to date, is hereby further amended as of May 19, 1999 as
follows:

1.   The Rights Agreement is hereby amended to add a new
Section 34 as follows:

          Section 34.  PennzEnergy Exclusion.
          Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
          contrary, (i) none of PennzEnergy Company or any
          of its Affiliates or Associates shall be deemed an
          Acquiring Person and no Stock Acquisition Date
          shall be deemed to have occurred as  result of any
          of the PennzEnergy Transaction Agreements (as
          defined below) or any of the transactions
          contemplated thereby and (ii) the Rights shall
          expire, and "Final Expiration Date" shall be
          deemed to be the time immediately prior to the
          Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement
          (as defined below))..  As used herein,
          "PennzEnergy Transaction Agreements" means (i) the
          Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 19,
          1999 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the
          Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
          and PennzEnergy Company; (ii) the Stock Option
          Agreements (as defined in the Merger Agreement);
          and (iii) any other agreement between or among the
          Company and PennzEnergy Company and/or any of
          their respective subsidiaries entered into in
          connection with the Merger Agreement.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be duly executed, all as of the 19th day
of May, 1999.

                         DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION


                         By:  /s/ J. Larry Nichols
                              J. Larry Nichols
                              President and Chief Executive
                              Officer


ATTEST:


/s/ Marian J. Moon
Marian J. Moon
Secretary


                         BANKBOSTON, N.A. (formerly,
                         THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
                         BOSTON (MASSACHUSETTS))


                         By:/s/ Katherine Anderson
                            Administration Manager


ATTEST:


/s/ Amy Toland
Administration Manager
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 Health and Human Services

Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services is being amended at Chapter AC, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), as last amended at 77 FR 2012-30005-30007, dated May 21, 2012. This amendment reflects the realignment of the Medical Reserve Corps from OASH to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and is consistent with authorities established under Sections 1703, 2811(c)(2)(D), and 2813 of the Public Health Service Act, as modified by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5). The change is as follows.

I. Under Part A, Chapter AC, OASH makes the following changes:

A. Under Section ACM.00, Mission, delete “(7) Maintaining and overseeing the activities of the Volunteer Medical Reserve Corps program (42 U.S.C. 300hh-15).”

B. Under Section ACM.10, Organization, delete “Division of the Civilian Volunteer Medical Reserve Corps (ACM5).”

C. Under Section ACM.20, Functions, delete section “(d) Division of the Civilian Volunteer Medical Reserve Corps (ACM5)” in its entirety.

II. Delegations of Authority. All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegation, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.

Dated: November 19, 2014.

Sylvia M. Burwell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28028 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7910
CURTIS L. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner and Former Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in his individual and official capacity; PATRICIA ALLEN, Deputy Commissioner of Maryland Division of Corrections, sued in her individual and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Former Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official capacity; SEWALL SMITH, Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3378-WDQ) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Curtis L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Phillip Michael Pickus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Curtis L. Wright appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wright v. Sondervan , No. CA-03-3378-WDQ (D. Md. filed Nov. 3, 2004; entered Nov. 4, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Touch Interfaces for Mobile-ID 

and Latent Fingerprint 

Mary Theofanos 

Specific hardware and software products identified in this report were used in order to perform the evaluations described. In no

case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that the products and equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose 
Guiding principles for incorporating new 

technologies: 

 Don’t introduce the technology just for the sake of the 

new technology 

 Align the technology with user needs and user goals 

 The technology should adapt to the user and the 

environment rather than the user adapting to the 

technology 
Why mobile-id? 

 Smart phones have become ubiquitous devices 

 Convergence of technologies 

 Natural extension 

 Addresses a real need 
Applications on smart-phones 

 Use an existing device --

convenient 

 Little or no learning curve –

touch interface 

 Battery life is critical 

 Need to function in daylight and 

at night 
Context of Use 

 Understand your users -- Ride along with your PD 

 Observe them in action 

 This is not their primary task 
User Centered Design 

 Design 

 Keep it simple 

 Focus on UI 

 User Testing 
Mobile-ID Goals 

 Mobile iD user requirements and high fidelity user 

interface model that: 

 minimizes the amount of user interaction 

 streamlines and flattens the workflow 

 introduces simplified graphics 

 dual directional interface 
Solution 

Attached Fingerprint Scanner 

Standard Off the Shelf 

Base platform 

Simple graphics 

Dual directional interface 
Why touch paradigms for latent? 

 Natural extension of current interactions 

 Inherent in current behaviors 

 Quickly becoming ubiquitous 

 Want to develop guidelines and examples implemented 

with users in mind (in contrast to Web) 
Context of Use 

 Know your user: 

 Interviewed 16 latent print 

examiners from FBI, DoD, 

CIA, Secret Service, New 

York State Department of 

Criminal Justice Services. 

 Observed three latent 

examiner teams: Maryland 

State Forensic Laboratory, 

FBI, US-VISIT 
Current Latent Fingerprint Environment 

 Desks covered with stacks of 

paper, including photos and 

printouts. 

 Printing and scanning are 

important activities, and many 

desks included printers and 

scanners. 

 Organizations are “paper 

bound.” 

 Analysis is still heavily a 

manual process 
New interaction paradigm 

 Touch User Interface 

 Electronic loupe with 

minutia marking 

 Status of each latent 

print from thumbnail 

images 

 Search results screen 

allows for rapid 

comparison 
Next steps 

 Feedback from latent examiners 

 Formal Usability testing
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          51,082
<SECURITIES>                                 2,888,947
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,179,863
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,179,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,416,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,179,863
<SALES>                                      5,005,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,359,893
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  389,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,970,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,970,428
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,970,428
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
10443.

#### Prater *v.*Baughman.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Reid. March 8, 1919.

*Walter A. Sims,*for plaintiff in error.

*Napier, Wright & Wood,*contra.

Stephens, J.

The failure of an executory consideration in a promissory note is not a defense against a purchaser for value before maturity who had knowledge of the character of the consideration but who acquired the note before the consideration had actually failed, and who had no notice, constructive or otherwise, that the consideration would fail. *Simmons*v. *Council, 5 Ga. App.*286 (63 S. E. 238); *Whitten*v. *Railway Postal Clerks’ Investment Asso.,*16 *Ga. App.*685 (85 S. E. 973); *Turner Lumber Co.*v. *Henderson Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*682, 689 (93 S. E. 301), and authorities cited. In the instant case no facts were developed from which the jury could find that the plaintiff (the transferee of the notes sued upon) had or could be charged with notice that the consideration would fail, and the trial judge, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

There is nothing decided in *Adams*v. *Hatfield,*17 *Ga. App.*680 (87 S. E. 1099), or the other cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, as applied to their particular facts, in conflict with the rule laid down above.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
#### Ebenezer Whaley v. Isaac Gale.

*Certiorari to a justice*— Beversal—Evidence.

A justice’s judgment on the merits should not he reversed on *certiorari*for the admission or rejection of evidence, unless it clearly appears that the party against whom judgment was given was injured by such ruling.

Error to Shiawasee.

Submitted Apr. 13.

Decided Apr. 19.

Assumpsit upon an agreement whereby plaintiff was to furnish a quantity of railroad ties, mark them and deliver them at certain points, and defendant was to give up a certain promissory note given by plaintiff to one Atherton and assigned by him to defendant for collection. Plaintiff brings error.

Eeversed.

*A. B. McBride*for appellant.

*Hugh McOurdy*for appellee.

*194Marston, J.

This cause was commenced and tried in justice’s court where the plaintiff recovered a judgment. On *certiorari*to the circuit the judgment of the justice was reversed. The case comes here on writ of error.

"We have examined the errors alleged in the affidavit for the writ of *certiorari.*The objections made to the admission of certain testimony were not well taken. In order to reverse the judgment of a justice rendered upon the merits, for the rejection or admission of evidence, it should appear clearly that the party against whom the judgment was rendered was injured by the ruling.

The evidence offered and admitted on the part of the plaintiff tended to prove a valid binding agreement; the delivery of railroad ties at a place agreed upon and marking them as the defendant had directed. This was denied by the defendant. If the plaintiff’s testimony and that of his witnesses was true, there was a delivery, and thus the case was taken out of the operation of the statute of frauds, and whether true or not was a question for the justice.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed and that of the justice affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### McCONNELL v. McCONNELL.

Civ. A. No. 811-51.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

July 23, 1951.

*494Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., Washington, D. 'C., for plaintiff.

Wendell L. McConnell, Wayland D. McClellan, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

TAMM, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action in this court to annul a marriage contracted in Virginia. The facts are briefly as follows:

•Plaintiff and defendant were domiciled in the District of Columbia and went into Virginia to be married. They were there married, and the plaintiff alleges the defendant left the plaintiff, never lived with or supported her. There was no evidence introduced of a specific intention on the part of the defendant not to cohabit with and/or support the plaintiff. The basis alleged in this action to annul the marriage is fraud. It is alleged that the defendant defrauded the plaintiff in inducing her to assume the marital status without an intention on his part to actually enter a valid and subsisting marriage relation.

The general and apparently universally accepted rule is that the validity of a marriage is to be determined by the law of the place of the celebration of the marriage, or the lex loci contractus. 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws, pp. 703, 704; 35 Am.Jur., Sec. 167 et ff., p. 282. This is the law of the District of Columbia. Rhodes v. Rhodes, 1938, 68 App.D.C. 313, 96 F.2d 715; Carr v. Carr, D.C.1949, 82 F.Supp. 398; Gerardi v. Gerardi, D.C.1946, 69 F.Supp. 296; Hitchens v. Hitchens, D.C.1942, 47 F.Supp. 73.

One fairly recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lends weight to the view that the rule in this jurisdiction is that the law of the forum governs in an annulment action. Stone v. Stone, 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 136 F.2d 761; however, the Court of Appeals in this case did not pinpoint the conflict of laws question, and the previously cited cases were neither referred to, distinguished from, nor reversed.

The substantial question presented to the court in this case is whether under the allegations outlined in the previous paragraph and the evidence introduced the petitioning wife is entitled to a decree of nullity of the marriage contracted in Virginia. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia has said that where fraud is alleged as a basis for setting aside a contract of marriage the evidence of fraud must be clear, irrespective of whether it is circumstantial or direct. Jacobs v. Jacobs, 1945, 184 Va. 281, 35 S.E.2d 119. Such clear evidence of the nonintention of the defendant to enter a valid marriage was not given during the trial.

The judgment is accordingly entered for the defendant.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I,   Shum Mukherjee, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Genus, Inc.;

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;

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

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent valuation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.



Date:  May 10th, 2004
/s/  Shum  Mukherjee
--------------------
Shum Mukherjee
Chief Financial Officer


                                       36
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2

 

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 of Mechanical Technology Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia A. Scheuer, Chief Financial 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:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte &

 Touche LLP, and Deloitte Financial

 Advisory Services LLP

)

)

)

ASBCA No. 63395

)

Under Contract Nos. N00039-15-C-0057

FA2550-17-C-8006

)

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Thomas A. Lemmer, Esq.

Phillip R. Seckman, Esq.

Jessica R. Chao, Esq.

 Dentons US LLP

 Denver, CO

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Peter M. Casey, Esq.

Evan Georgopoulos, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Hanscom Air Force Base, MA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: August 22, 2023

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63395, Appeal of Deloitte Consulting 

LLP, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, rendered in 

conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: August 22, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals