alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14132]



[[Page 28726]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Evidence

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Evidence.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a one-
day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: November 20, 2009.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Planters Inn, 112 North Market Street, Charleston, South 
Carolina 29401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: June 11, 2009.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. E9-14132 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.26


                   FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OPTION AGREEMENT

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OPTION AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made 
and becomes effective as of March 1, 1998 (the "Effective Date") by and 
between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and company duly 
incorporated under the laws of the Republic of China ("ROC"), having its 
principal place of business at No. 121, Park Avenue 3, Science Based 
Industrial Park, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, ROC ("TSMC"), and Oak Technology, Inc., a 
company duly incorporated under the laws of ROC, having its principal place 
of business at Rm. B, No. 370, Sec. 1, Fu-Hsing S. Rd. Taipei, Taiwan ("Oak").

     In consideration of mutual covenants and conditions, the parties, hereto 
agree to amend the Option Agreement entered into on August 8, 1996 (the 
"Option Agreement") as follows:

1.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings given 
    them in the Option Agreement.

2.  Owing to the fact that the actual number of wafers purchased by OAK in 
    1996 exceeded the 1996 Customer Committed Capacity by [ * ] wafers, the 
    parties agree to apply such exceeding number of wafers to the 1997 Base 
    Capacity thereby reducing the 1997 Base Capacity from [ * ] wafers to 
    [ * ] wafers, and the 1997 Customer Committed Capacity from [ * ] wafers 
    to [ * ] wafers.  The parties further agree that the 1997 TSMC Committed 
    Capacity shall remain at [ * ] wafers.

3.  In the event that OAK's purchase of wafers exceeds the TSMC Committed 
    Capacity of year(s) 1997 and/or 1998, the parties agree that the exceeding
    number of wafers would be applied first to the Base Capacity and then to 
    the Option Capacity of the following calendar year, and the Base Capacity,
    Option Capacity and Customer Committed Capacity of the following calendar 
    year will therefore be reduced as appropriate by the excess amount.
    However, the TSMC Committed Capacity would not be affected by the 
    occurrence of the above-stated conditions.

4.  Subject to the foregoing amendments, the Option Agreement shall continue 
    in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to the 
Option Agreement as of the date first stated above.


Taiwan Semiconductor                          Oak Technology, Inc.
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.                      
                                             
By: /s/ C.C. Tsai                             By: /s/ Sidney S. Faulkner
    ----------------------------                  ----------------------------
                                             
Name:  C.C. Tsai                              Name:  Sidney S. Faulkner
                                             
Title:  Senior Director                       Title:  Vice President
        Asia Marketing & Technical Service            & Chief Financial Officer



                * CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR
                  REDACTED PORTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED SEPARATELY
                  WITH THE COMMISSION.
#### In the Matter of Murphy & O’Connell, Appellant, v Tax Appeals Tribunal et al., Respondents.

Decided June 28, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1523
DIANE M. KENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; DANA WHITT, Lieutenant; AURORA BULLOCK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-02593-RDB) Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 8, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas R. Taylor, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, M. Cecilia Hellrung, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Diane M. Kent appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer and individual supervisors on her claims of retaliation and discrimination brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2000), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd , 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 2008 WL 112249 (U.S. Sept. 19, 2007) (No. 05-1570). Summary judgment may be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kent v. Maryland Transp. Auth. , No. 1:05-cv-02593-RDB (D. Md. May 1, 2007). 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
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries

The following companies are subsidiaries of the Company and are included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company:

|NAME                                    |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  | Percentage of Voting
Securities Owned |     
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- | ----
|American Locker Security Systems, Inc.  |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                                   | %   
|American Locker Company, Inc.           |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                                   | %   
|American Locker Company of Canada, Ltd. |  | Dominion of Canada           |  | 100                                   | %(1)
|Canadian Locker Company, Ltd.           |  | Dominion of Canada           |  | 100                                   | %(2)
|Security Manufacturing Corporation      |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                                   | %   
|ALTRECO, Incorporated                   |  | Delaware                     |  | 100                                   | %   

---

---



QuickLinks
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) publishes the names of the Persons selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB).

      ( print page 27382)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Chandler, Director of Human Resources, (202) 245-0340.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title 5 U.S.C. 4314 requires that each agency implement a performance appraisal system making senior executives accountable for organizational and individual goal accomplishment. As part of this system, 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish one or more PRBs, the function of which is to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor and to make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The persons named below have been selected to serve on STB's PRB.

Leland L. Gardner, Director, Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis and Administration.

Matthew T. Wallen, Director, Office Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Enforcement.

Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Ellen D. Hanson, General Counsel.

Dated: June 2, 2009.

Andrea Pope-Matheson,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. E9-13400 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~ ~ourt**  

# of**~peaI~** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI**~ircuit**

ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. AND 

### MATSUSHITAELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees, AND 

### JVC AMERICAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### NOKIA CORPORATION AND 

### NOKIA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND 

### HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### PALM, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### KYOCERAWIRELESS CORPORATION AND 

### KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,ST. CLAIRINTELLECTUALv. MATSUSHITAELECTRIC Defendants-Appellees, AND 

### VIVITAR CORPORATION, PETTERS GROUP WORLDWIDE, LLC, POLAROID CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, LLC, POLAROID HOLDING COMPANY, AND 

### POLAROID CORP., Defendants-Appellees, AND 

### HTC CORPORATION, HTC (BVI) CORP" AND 

### HTC AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND 

### RESEARCH INMOTION LTD. AND 

### RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., Defendants-Appellees.

2012-1348, -1349, -1350 2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofDelaware in case nos. 04-CV-1436, 06-CV-0404, and 08-CV-0371, Judge Leonard P. Stark.


### ON MOTION
Before LOURIE, SCHALL and DYK, 

### Circuit Judges. LOURIE, 

### Circuit Judge. ORDER. Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss these appeals for lack ofjurisdiction and move for fees and costs. St.3 ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. (St. Clair") does not oppose the dismissal without prejudice to refiling after entry of final judgment but opposes costs and fees. Defendants-Appellees reply. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeals are dismissed as premature. (2) Each side shallbearits own costs.


## AUG 032012 Date FORTHE COURT
lsi Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk
cc: Dominic E. Massa, Esq.

s25MarkAndrew Woodmansee, Esq. Huan-Yi Lin, Esq. Robert Francis Perry, Esq. Ralph Terrance Rader, Esq. Charlene M. Morrow, Esq. John G. Day, Esq. Richard de Bodo, Esq. Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq.

ISSUED AS MANDATE: 

## _A_U_G_0_3_2_012

__ 

## u.s.**couJtan.~**FOR THEFEDERALCIRCUIT



## AUG 03 ZOlZ JANHORBALY 

### ClERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,473,991
<SECURITIES>                                 2,525,808
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,121,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,451,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,354,186
<PP&E>                                       9,559,963
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,030,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,166,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,718,432
<BONDS>                                      1,640,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,549
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,437,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,166,927
<SALES>                                      8,229,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,052,012
<CGS>                                        6,636,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,636,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,289,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,071,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                   189,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            725,253
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   725,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
<FN>
Accounts receivable are net of allowance of $274,000 at March 31, 1996.
<FN>
Inventories are net of reserve of $318,000 at March 31, 1996.



</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 25, 2016

No. 04-15-00806-CR

Michael Wilfred LAFLAMME,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CRW160-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s 1-hour motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kirkville Johnson, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 706]

Judgment, *562Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis J. Boyle, J.), rendered November 15, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict, in which the jury rejected defendant’s justification defense, was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. “The jury reasonably determined, based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, that the victim did not present an imminent threat of deadly physical force” *(People v Colon,*267 AD2d 125, 125 [1999]). The evidence also established that defendant could have safely retreated *(see*Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]).

We find no basis to disturb the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment to RegistrationStatement No. 333-66986 of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly Barr Laboratories, Inc., on FormS-4 and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-73696, 33-73698, 333-17349, 333-17351, 333-50356,333-75388, 333-75390, 333-102070 and 333-102072 of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly BarrLaboratories, Inc., on Form S-8 of our report dated September 9, 2005, relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and to management’sreport on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2005./s/ *DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*Parsippany, New Jersey
#### Golden City Commercial Bank, Plaintiff, v 207 Second Avenue Realty Corp. et al., Defendants. Michael G. Zapson, as Temporary Receiver of the Rents and Profits of 207 Second Avenue, New York, New York, Nonparty Respondent; Janet Chang, as Successor in Interest, Nonparty Appellant.

Submitted April 8, 2013;

decided May 2, 2013

Motion for reargument denied *[see*20 NY3d 1056 (2013)].
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael D. Dale, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of ATS Medical, Inc.;
     and

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     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.

Date: July 17, 2006


/s/ Michael D. Dale
----------------------------------------
Name: Michael D. Dale
Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------



                         SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Brent A. Latta, Chief Executive 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:

      i.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
            section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      ii.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
            in all material respects, the financial condition and
            result of operations of the Company.



                                    /s/ Brent A. Latta
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer

February 8, 2005


































[Signed originals of these written statements required by Section 906 have
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]


                                     23
#### MATTHIES v. PETER F. CONNOLLY CO.

No. 2315.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Dec. 19, 1941.

Albert Martin Cohen, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.

John P. Smith, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order pursuant to Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, vacating in its entirety plaintiff’s notice to take the deposition of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, by an officer, agent or employee having personal knowledge of the facts out of which this action arises.

Motion granted without prejudice.

The notice should designate the officers, agents or servants to be examined and if discovery is desired the motion should be made on notice.

Reports, statements and affidavits taken by the company before the matter is submitted to its attorney can properly be examined but statements and affidavits taken by the attorney for the Insurance Company, in preparation for trial, are privileged. Of course, hearsay testimony can not be taken. The witness or witnesses *278named in the order may be asked the names of any other officers, agents or employees, who have any information and their names.

Any oral statements made by the Captain of the barge or any officers of the owner of the barge to the witness testifying of course can be taken to be used if necessary to contradict any different testimony they may give.
----

** Exhibit 32.1**

** MPHASE TECHNOLGIES, INC.**

** CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a NewJersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Qfor the quarter ended September30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), thatto his knowledge:

1. 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ronald A. Durando                

Ronald A. DurandoChief Executive Officer

November 14, 2007

 

----
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3592 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as 

the ‘‘First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3592 ES

1 SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ROBERT WILSON COLLINS 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, 

5 Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘First 

6 Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Rob11 ert Wilson Collins Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate December 16, 2010. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3592 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWilson Collins Post Office Building’’. rone, Georgia, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Robert al Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Ty-