alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hammerschlag Manuf’g Co. *v.*Spalding *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

May 8, 1888.)

1. Patents for Inventions—Reissue—Waxed Paper.

Claim 5 of reissued letters patent No. 8,460, of October 22,1878, to Siegfried Hammerschlag, for a process of making waxed paper by machinery, is identical with the second claim of the original, viz., No. 198,867, of August 7, 1877, and the reissue was applied for within 14 months after the date of the original. *Meld,*the validity of the reissue never having been questioned in any of the numerous prior decisions sustaining the patent, the claim should be sustained.

2. Same—Patentability—Anticipation.

Claim 5 of reissued letters patent No. 8,460, of October 22,1878, to Siegfried Hammerschlag', for a process of making waxed paper by machinery, *held*not anticipated by Edison. Following *Hammerschlag*v. *Wood,*18 Fed. Rep. 175.

In Equity. Oil final hearing.

*Frost & Coe*and *Livermore & Fish,*for complainants.

*H. D. Haddock, Thomas Weston, Jr.,*and *Lorenzo Dow,*for defendant.

Colt, J.

The fifth claim of the Hammerschlag reissued letters patent No. 8¡480 has been sustained by the court in this circuit, and in a number of other contested cases in several other circuits. *Hammerschlag*v. *Wood,*18 Fed. Rep. 175; *Same*v. Scamoni, 7 Fed. Rep. 584; *Same*v. *Garrett,*9 Fed. Rep. 43; *Same*v. *Bancroft,*32 Fed. Rep. 585. In the present case, after an exhaustive hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction, I held that the defendants’ machine came within the scope of these decisions. I see no reason to change the view then taken. I agree with Judge Gresham, in the case of this complainant- against Bancroft, “that a proper regard for uniformity of decision, especially in litigation of this character, should incline other courts to hold the patent valid against the same or substantially the same defenses until all controversy over its validity is put at rest by a decree of the supreme court of the Uuited States. ” The new defenses which it is contended are raised in this case can hardly be said to be new. It is said that the fifth claim of the reissue is void. This claim is identical with the second claim of the original patent, and the reissue was applied for within 14 months after the date of the original. The-validity of the reissue has never been questioned in prior decisions sustaining the patent, and, in spite of the elaborate argument of defendants’ counsel, I deem it my duty to uphold *68this claim. The defendants have the right of appeal to the supreme court; and, before adjudging a patent to be bad, which has been sustained in this and other circuits, the court should feel convinced beyond doubt that those decisions wcre wrong. The alleged anticipation of Edison was in substance before Judge Lowell in the FPood Case, and this testimony cannot be said to be new in the Hammerschlag litigation, and therefore it affords no sufficient ground for successfully attacking the validity of the patent. A decree should be entered for complainant. Decree for complainant.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29678-29679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XP79


Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Offshore Exploratory Drilling in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of an incidental take authorization 
application.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Shell Offshore, Inc. (Shell) has 
withdrawn its application for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(IHA). The following action is related to a proposed IHA to Shell for 
the take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, 
incidental to conducting open-water offshore exploratory drilling on 
outer continental shelf (OCS) oil lease blocks in the Beaufort Sea off 
Alaska during the 2008/2009 open-water season.

ADDRESSES: The documents and the application related to this action are 
available by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, 
and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-
3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here.
    A copy of the application containing a list of the references used 
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified 
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, 
by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman or Ken Hollingshead, 
NMFS, 301-713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 24, 2008, NMFS received a 
revision to Shell's October 19, 2007, application requesting an IHA. 
The requested IHA was for an authorization to take, by Level B 
harassment, small numbers of several species of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting open-water offshore exploratory drilling on 
OCS oil lease blocks in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska during the 2008/
2009 open-water season. On May 13, 2009,

[[Page 29679]]

Shell informed NMFS that they would no longer be conducting exploratory 
drilling in the 2008/2009 season and requested the withdrawal of their 
IHA application. During the time since submitting its January 2007 
Beaufort Sea OCS Lease Exploration Plan for 2007-2009 to the Minerals 
Management Service, Shell's priority exploration drilling locations for 
its Beaufort Sea leases have changed.

    Dated: June 10, 2009.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14719 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
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 Annual Report of Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Jeffrey D. Kastner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1)  This Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, to which this certification is attached as an Exhibit, 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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/  Jeffrey D. KastnerName:
Jeffrey D. KastnerChief Financial Officer and SecretaryDate:
December  28, 2010
 
 
 The foregoing certificate is provided solely for the purpose of complying with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any of the Company’s previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the Company’s future filings, including this annual report on Form 10-K, in whole or in part, this certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
97-248.

#### State ex rel. Russell v. Dunlap.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Kelly Ashmore, Respondent, v Benjamin Ashmore, Appellant.

Submitted August 6, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*19 NY3d 807 (2012)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 23 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 23

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure 
  the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential 
                               customers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2019

 Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. 
 Joyce of Ohio) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure 
  the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential 
                               customers.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced that it may need to 
        eliminate or reduce levels of door-to-door delivery service by the 
        conversion of millions of homes and businesses to centralized delivery 
        or curbside and require those who wish to retain their door service to 
        pay a delivery tax;
Whereas reduced levels of service will have an immediate impact on current year 
        revenue and a long-term impact on the viability of a business inevitably 
        causing a larger drop in revenue from service cuts than from the 
        estimated savings of elimination or reducing door delivery;
Whereas door delivery is a vital service that the American people have relied on 
        since the 1860s in both rural and urban areas and ensures the security 
        of mail and packages;
Whereas voluntary conversion of businesses in 2013 equated to a mere 0.8 percent 
        of voluntary conversions confirming that businesses depend on in-person 
        contact with letter carriers to ensure transactional security and 
        initiate new business and revenue for the Postal Service;
Whereas millions of Americans will be forced to retrieve their daily mail and 
        packages from a centralized location removing the daily convenience for 
        Americans in receiving checks, medications and other essential items; 
        and
Whereas eliminating or reducing door delivery services will serve as a hindrance 
        for the elderly and disabled who will be forced to retrieve their mail 
        and packages and be required to submit to a cumbersome application 
        process in order to opt out of the requirement: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures 
to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all businesses and 
residential customers.
                                 <all>
```
Cause No. 03-14-00512-CR

CRAE ROBERT PEASE

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Crae Robert Pease, Appellant, moves this Court to grant an extension of time to

file Appellant's Brief, and respectfully states:

1. Appellant's Briefwas due on June 17, 2015, however, the record wasn't

complete, and a Supplemental Clerk's record was filed in this court on June 3,

2015.

2. Appellant seeks a thirty day extension of time to file Appellant's Brief

from today's date , which would make Appellant's Brief due on or before August

13,2015.

3. This extension of time is necessary because the issue is very

complicated and requires a great deal oftime to throughly examine the records and

transcript and study the defenses.

4. This is the first extension of time Appellant has sought for the filing

hisbrief.

'received^

JUL 1 3 2015

THIRD CC'JST OF A-?EALS

PFFRnYP.Ki'iE /
For these reason, Crae Robert Pease requests that this court render an order

extending the time for filing Appellant's Briefto and including August 13, 2015

Crae Robert Pease

6715 Skynook Drive

Austin, Texas 78745

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On July 13, 2015, an attempt was made to confer with William Swaim,

attorney for Appellee, in order to confer asto the extension butwas unable to reach

Mr. Swaim.

Crae Robert Pease

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 13, 2015, a copy of the attached motion for extension of time was

sent by U. S. Postal Service to:

William Swaim

Travis County Attorney's Office

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00694-CV

Anthony Passeur, Appellant

v.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 14-0981-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Anthony Passeur has informed this Court that he no longer wishes

to pursue this appeal and has filed a motion to dismiss it. Appellant’s counsel states that he has

conferred with counsel for appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which does not

oppose this motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: July 10, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DASHAWN L. SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 785 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 31(b)

CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION

I,
Jonathan W. Thayer, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Constellation Energy Group, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a15(f) and 15d15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation 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):



Date:
February 27, 2009

|                                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ JONATHAN W. THAYER                            |  | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
# Opsoclonus Myoclonus

## What is opsoclonus myoclonus?

Opsoclonus myoclonus (OMS), also known as Dancing Eyes-Dancing Feet Syndrome and Kinsbourne syndrome, is a rare disorder that affects the eyes and muscles and causes other disturbances. 

In young children, it is most often caused by a tumor that triggers the immune system to mistakenly attack the nervous system, with an onset that can be described as abrupt and severe. In adults, the condition is caused most often in response to lung or breast cancers. It can also occur on its own or following a bacterial or viral infection. OMS is generally not a fatal disorder.

Symptoms include:

                    - Opsoclonus (irregular, rapid eye movements)
                    - Myoclonus (brief, shock-like muscle spasms) in the arms or legs
                    - Unsteady, trembling gait (manner of walking)
                    - Ataxia (including difficulty walking and with balance)
                    - Tremor of the hand

                    - Difficulty speaking
                    - Difficulty eating or sleeping
                    - Behavioral changes, including rage attacks
                    - Lack of coordination
                    - Hypotonia (decreased muscle tone)

 Doctors diagnose OMS when the person has three of the four following symptoms:
              - A rare type of cancer that affects the nerve tissue
              - Uncontrolled eye movement 
              - Myoclonus and/or ataxia
              - Issues with behavior or sleep disturbance

A blood exam can detect certain antibodies in individuals with OMS.

Treatment includes corticosteroids or the hormone ACTH, intravenous immunoglobulin therapy (in which antibodies from hundreds of donors are pooled together and injected into a person to fight the immune response), and medications to treat other symptoms. Some people recover fully while others continue to display symptoms, and some people with the disorder may have a relapse of neurological symptoms.

file-medical

## How can I or my loved one help improve care for people with opsoclonus myoclonus?

Consider participating in a clinical trial so clinicians and scientists can learn more about OMS and related disorders. Clinical research uses human volunteers to help researchers learn more about a disorder and perhaps find better ways to safely detect, treat, or prevent disease. 

All types of volunteers are needed—those who are healthy or may have an illness or disease—of all different ages, sexes, races, and ethnicities to ensure that study results apply to as many people as possible, and that treatments will be safe and effective for everyone who will use them. 

For information about participating in clinical research visit NIH Clinical Research Trials and You. Learn about clinical trials for people with opsoclonus myoclonus at ClinicalTrials.gov, which provides information about ongoing and completed federal and privately supported clinical trials.
> Where can I find more information about opsoclonus myoclonus?
More information may be available through the following resource:

Genetic and Rare Diseases (GARD) Information Center

book-open
Dismissed and Opinion Filed April 8, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00040-CV

JASON PARKS, Appellant

V.

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-00926-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated March 11, 2021, 

we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant 

to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to file his brief by that time might result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a brief, filed an extension motion, nor 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c).

210040f.p05

/Ken Molberg/

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JASON PARKS, Appellant

No. 05-21-00040-CV V.

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-00926-

2020.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Molberg. Justices Goldstein and 

Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY recover its 

costs of this appeal from appellant JASON PARKS.

Judgment entered this 8th day of April, 2021.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 9, 2015

No. 04-15-00264-CR

Angel H. LONGORIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5685A

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion to abate the appeal so that the trial court may reconsider the 

certification of the defendant’s right of appeal and so that an accurate certification may be 

obtained from the trial court. See TEX R. APP. P. 25.2, 35.4(c), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 

S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The motion is GRANTED. We order any 

amended Certification be signed and filed in a supplemental clerk’s record by August 10, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court