alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ingersoll *v.*Turner and another.

*(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.*

June 5, 1877.)

1. Patent No. 119,705—Cusfidoks—Anticipation—'Validity.

Letters patent No. 119,705, granted October 10, 1871, to E. A. Heath, for improved metallic cuspidor, *held, anticipated*by letters patent No. 106,094, granted August 2, 1870, to William H. Topham, for *improved spittoons,*and therefore *invalid.*

In Equity.

*Whitney é Betts,*for complainant.

*Charles F. Blake,*for defendants.

Nixon, D. J.

This is a suit in equity to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. .119,705, issued to E. A. Heath on the tenth day of Oetober, 1871, for a metallic cuspidor. The hill of complaint prays for an injunction, account, and assessment of damages. The answer denies that Heath was the original and first inventor of the alleged improvement in cuspidors described and claimed in his letters patent, hut that he was anticipated by one William H. Top-ham, to whom letters patent were granted on the second of August, 1870. The word “cuspidor” is derived from the Por. tugúese verb *cuspo,*to *spit; cuspidor,*a spitter. The English cuspidor is a spittoon of a peculiar form. Not much stress, therefore, can be laid upon the fact that Topham calls his patent “an improvement in spittoons,” and Heath calls his “an improvement in cuspidors.” The difference between a spittoon and a cuspidor is one of form, and the form of the cuspidor is not new. The characteristic and valuable feature of both articles is their self-righting quality, arising from their weighted bottoms. The functions of the weighted bottom in each are the same, and Topham’s has the merit of being the older. It is in evidence that he made *papier mache*cuspidors with weighted bottoms as early as June or July, 1871, anterior to the date of the patent to Heath. What, then, has Heath done? He has improved a cuspidor by increasing the weight of the bottom, whereby it is rendered *860less liable to upset, using the same means that Topham applied to spittoons, and producing the same results. He has substituted sheet-metal for other, and it may be less appropriate, materials for the manufacture, but there was no invention in the mere change of material. And his method of construction, to-wit, the putting together the cuspidor in three pieces, is so obvious the t nothing was claimed for it in the patent, and nothing oug it to have been. Any skilled mechanic would naturally acopt it without the exercise of inventive talent.

As the defendants justify tinder the Topham patent there must be a decree in their *í¿*vor, and it is ordered accordingly!
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation for the year ended December 25, 2005 as to which this Certification is
an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.

Signed March 20, 2006.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



E-8
-  Home 
        -  News 
        -  Media Library 
        -  Media Asset Details 

Return to Media Library Search Results

# Steps to Take Action

View full-sized image
                Download Media **Please credit each image as: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

## Description

                    Steps to create an action plan for healthy living.                

## Alternate Text

Step 3 Make the changes you set out to achieve. Ask your family and friends to support you, and track your progress. Don't forget to reward yourself for meeting your goals!

## File Size

417 KB | 2048 x 2047

## File Type

PNG

## Related Keywords

Infographics, charts, and graphsEnglish labels

Share this page
FacebookXEmailWhatsAppLinkedInRedditPinterest
#### Jeana Barenboim et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v Starbucks Corporation, Respondent. Eugene Winans et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v Starbucks Corporation, Respondent.

Decided November 27, 2012

*See*698 F3d 104.

Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.
- Kalispel apprl ltr 6-2-22.pdf
- 4212-3.pdf
Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT
HI PRINCESS BULANADI


Please review the Amendment to your Membership Agreement below.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to reach out to us at we-us-39470@wework.com
Reference is hereby made to the WeWork Membership Agreement between 200 Berkeley Street Tenant LLC ("WeWork") and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. dated January 29, 2020, including the accompanying Membership Details Form and any other amendments thereto (the "Agreement"). The parties agree that the following terms shall be considered binding amendments to the Agreement (the "Amendment"). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.
PRIMARY MEMBER INFORMATION


NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Primary member: Princess Bulanadi
princess@neurobopharma.com
AMENDED MEMBERSHIP DETAILS


WeWork 200 Berkeley
Current Office(s)
19-120 · 2 person office
Membership Fee:
$1,340.00/mo from July 1, 2022
Commitment term
Start date: July 1, 2022
End date: September 30, 2022
​
​

​
	Amendment to WeWork Membership Agreement
	1



​



MEMBERSHIP FEE SUMMARY


​
	​
	​
	​
	​
	NET

	​
	​
	MEMBERSHIP
	​
	DISCOUNTED

	OFFICE
	DATES
	FEE
	DISCOUNT
	FEE

	19-120
	07/01/2022 -
09/30/2022
	$1,340.00
	$201.00
	$1,139.00



​
​
​
ANNUAL ESCALATION


On each anniversary of the start date for the office, the Membership Fee will be subject to an automatic three and a half percent (3.5%) increase over the then current Membership Fee.
This amendment may alter the date upon which Member Company's annual increase of the Membership Fee occurs, but in no event shall it occur on a date earlier than the next anniversary of the Start Date of the Agreement.
In the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail. The parties further agree that other than the terms modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains otherwise unchanged, including the annual Membership Fee increases set forth in the Agreement.
By electronically signing this Amendment you represent that you have the proper authority to execute this Amendment on behalf of NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and incur the obligations described in this Amendment on behalf of NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
​
	Community Manager's signature
	​
	Electronic Signature

	Erika Nedwell
	​
	Gil Price

	200 Berkeley Street Tenant LLC
	​
	NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

	​
	​
	Signed on April 19, 2022



​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
	WeWork
	​

	200 Berkeley Street Tenant LLC
	​

	200 Berkeley Street
	​

	Boston, MA, 02116, USA
	(646) 491-9060

	VAT: 834152702
	we-us-39470@wework.com



​

​
	Amendment to WeWork Membership Agreement
	2



​
97-218.

#### State v. McCraney.

Summit App. No. 17683. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
97-615.

#### State ex rel. Myers v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 99(ii)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECITON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Medicore, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
I, Daniel R. Ouzts, Principal Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

                                    /s/ Daniel R. Ouzts
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    DANIEL R. OUZTS, Principal Financial Officer

Dated: March 27, 2003



<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Jarrod DOCKERY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4694.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 20, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

*318Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Jarrod Dockery entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(2000), and was sentenced to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. Dockery reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his previous North Carolina conviction for breaking and entering a motor vehicle and felonious larceny after breaking and entering did not constitute a “prior felony” for purposes of § 922(g)(1). He argues that under North Carolina law and given his particular criminal history, he faced less than one year of imprisonment. Dockery asserts his North Carolina convictions were not proper predicate offenses under the indictment because the applicable term of imprisonment was less than one year. Dockery asserts the same issue on appeal but also acknowledges that his claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent.

We conclude, as Dockery admits, that the district court did not err because his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Harp,*406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 297, 163 L.Ed.2d 259 (2005), in which we found *United States v. Jones,*195 F.3d 205 (4th Cir.1999), still viable after *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and reaffirmed that a prior North Carolina conviction satisfies § 922(g)(1) if *any*defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence in excess of one year. Thus, because a sentence of over twelve months could be imposed on a defendant convicted of breaking and entering a motor vehicle and felonious larceny after breaking and entering, Dockery’s prior convictions were properly considered felonies.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*
#### Darrell J. HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeff BECK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20838

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2006.

Darrell J. Harper, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lionel Mark Schooler, Jackson Walker, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeff Beck appeals the denial of his motion for sanctions. Beck renewed his motion (which had not been ruled on) that sanctions be imposed against Darrell J. Harper the day following the .dismissal of Harper’s civil rights complaint. Beck avers that the district court should have sanctioned Harper for his repetitive and frivolous pursuit of litigation.

The district court denied Beck’s motion for sanctions without assigning any rea*439sons. We are therefore unable to conduct a meaningful review of the district court’s order. *See Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., Inc.,*278 F.3d 472, 484-86 (5th Cir.2002). We vacate the district court’s order denying sanctions and remand for an explanation of whatever ruling the district court might make on the sanctions issue on remand.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
NorAm Energy Corp. and Subsidiaries  (the "Company") on Form S-3 (File Nos.
33-64001, 33-41493, 33-52853 and 33-55071) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-61923,
33-10806, 33-20594, 33-38063, 33-38064, 33-54241, 33-54247, and 33-54253) of
our report dated March 25, 1997 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of the Company as of December 31,
1996 and 1995, and for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                                     COOPERS & LYBRAND  L.L.P.


Houston, Texas
March 27, 1997
Exhibit 32(d)

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





I,



(1)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.










|/s/ Joseph F. DominoJoseph F. Domino
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer-Texas
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          



Date:	March 9, 2004
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
EMMANUEL C. GONZALEZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
NEW LIFE VENTURES, INC., Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2016

- 2622, 2017

- 1092

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No s . 2:14

- cv

- 00906

- JRG, 2:14

- cv

- 00907

- JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gil strap.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
M ICHAEL S COTT F ULLER , Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by P AUL D ONSY L EIN

.
N ICHOLAS A. B ROWN , Greenberg Traurig LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant

- cross appellant.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , O’M ALLEY , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 21, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
January 7,2004 

Mr. Clifton Lind 

President, C.O.O. 

Multimedia Games, Inc. 

8900 Shoal Creek Blvd., Bldg. 3 

Austin, TX 78757 

RE: Reel Time Bingo modification 

Dear Mr. Lind: 

On December 12,2003, you and Tony Graham came to our offices to demonstrate a variation 

of the game Reel Time Bingo version 2.0, as described in the September 23,2003, advisory W opinion issued by Penny Coleman, NIGC Acting General Counsel. On December 18,2003, 

we received from Nick Farley & Associates an analysis of the modifications made to Reel 

Time Bingo version 2.0. 

We asked to see the new version of the game under the terms of the Settlement Agreement in 

Multimedia Games v. United States (Docket No. 02-5 161, 10th Cir.), which provides that 

Multimedia will not modify the game on which NIGC issued a game classification opinion 

without first providing ninety (90) days notice to NIGC, including a complete submission of 

the modifications. 

The changes to the game appear to be limited to the following: 

The spinning reels display begins only once a player daubs a second time. 

The edge of the spinning reels display changes color when a player daubs. 

Wording on the daub buttons have changed. 

The prompt "Hurry" has been added to the screen for players who have 

slept a bingo. 

We conclude that the modifications do not affect the classification of the game since they do 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Sulte 9100. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 www.~~cc.cov 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland. OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix. AZ; St. Paul. MN; Tulsa, OK 
w not involve factors that are necessary for class I1 games as identified in the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act, NIGC regulations, or our recently issued advisory opinions or bulletins. I am 

therefore of the opinion that the game with the aforementioned modifications constitutes class 

11 gaming. 

Thank you for submitting the game for our review. If you have further questions, please 

contact Cynthia Shaw at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely yours, 

PennyJ. d-td o man 

Acting General Counsel
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the following matter will be added to the “summary agenda” for consideration at the open meeting of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation scheduled to be held at 10 a.m. on Friday, May 29, 2009, in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC: 

*Memorandum and resolutions re:*                     Honoring Employees with 35 Years of Federal Service.                 

                    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit                     *http://www.vodium.com/​goto/​fdic/​boardmeetings.asp*                     to view the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at:                     *http://www.fdic.gov/​video.html.*

                    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (                    *e.g.,*                     sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to make necessary arrangements.                 

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7043. 

Dated: May 28, 2009. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

 Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-12731 Filed 5-28-09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P
#### In the Matter of Marc Lewis, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 629]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review two determinations of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was served with two misbehavior reports, one for an incident that occurred on July 10, 2012 and the other for an incident that occurred on August 10, 2012. In the first misbehavior report, petitioner was charged with making threats, creating *1195a disturbance, refusing a direct order and harassment. At the tier III disciplinary hearing held to address the first misbehavior report, petitioner pleaded not guilty to making threats and pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. Following the hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of making threats, and guilty of the other charges. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. In the second misbehavior report, petitioner was charged with refusing a direct order, interfering with an employee, harassment, creating a disturbance and violating mess hall procedures after he refused to return his food trays. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. On administrative appeal, the interference charge was dismissed, but the remainder of the determination was upheld. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging both disciplinary determinations.

We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the determination of guilt with regard to those charges in the first misbehavior report to which he pleaded guilty *(see of Valdez v Fischer,*100 AD3d 1213, 1213 [2012]). Further, to the extent that the first misbehavior report incorrectly identified the charge alleging harassment as interfering with an employee, the correct rule number was cited, petitioner failed to object to the discrepancy at the hearing, and the Hearing Officer applied the appropriate rule *(see Matter of Brown v Fischer,*73 AD3d 1362, 1363 n [2010]; *Matter of Combes v Artus,*62 AD3d 1134, 1135 n [2009]).

With regard to the second determination, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of its author provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Ventimiglia v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 94*AD3d 1327, 1328 [2012]; *Matter of Green v Bradt,*79 AD3d 1566, 1567 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 709 [2011]). We reject petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied a videotape of the incident. The record reflects that a videotape of the date of the incident was played at the hearing. Although petitioner requested more videotapes, it was established at the hearing that no other videotapes existed *(see Matter of Davis v Fischer,*83 AD3d 1356, 1357 [2011]; *Matter of Hayes v Fischer,*78 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2010]).

Rose, J.P, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.