alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### New York Belting & Packing Co. *v.*Magowan and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.*

December 10, 1884.)

Patents for Inventions—Infringement—Preliminary Injunction—Want of Novelty.

The novelty of the patent being in doubt, the application for a preliminaiy injunction is refused, on condition that defendants execute a bond to secure complainant on the accounting, if, upon final hearing, the patent is sustained, although the infringement is clearly shown.

On Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Nixon, J.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction. I have no difficulty on the question of infringement. The exhibits of the defendants’ manufacture, both in 1882 and 1884, show quite clearly, to my mind, that they are infringements of .the complainant’s patent. But the evidence of the defendants, and especially the affidavits of the expert, Weigand, throw'some doubt on its novelty. Under the circumstances, I regard it as a proper case in which to refuse an injunction, if the defendants will execute a bond to secure the complainant on the accounting, if, upon final hearing, there shall be a decree sustaining the validity of the patent. The injunction is therefore withheld, provided that the defendants, within 10 days, *597shall file a bond to the complainant corporation, in the penal sum of $10,000, conditioned for the payment of profits and damages for all subsequent infringement, if the patent shall be finally sustained; the bond to be approved by the clerk, and the defendants to file an account, under oath, every 60 days, of the rubber manufactured and sold by them, of the kind and character shown in the exhibits.
Filed 10/17/06 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2006 ND 203

Ronald R. Ernst, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20060108

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ronald R. Ernst (on brief), pro se, petitioner and appellant.

Trent W. Mahler (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, and Christene Beaupre (on brief), appearing under the Rule on the Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Courthouse, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, ND 58108-2806, for respondent and appellee.

Ernst v. State

No. 20060108

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Ronald Ernst appeals from a district court order, dated March 23, 2006, dismissing his second application for post-conviction relief.  Ernst entered guilty pleas to burglary, stalking, two counts of theft, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, and indecent exposure in 2002.  We affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Ernst’s first application for post-conviction relief, holding that Ernst failed to present competent admissible evidence to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.  Ernst v. State, 2004 ND 152, 683 N.W.2d 891.  Since then, Ernst has appealed similar issues to this Court.  See State v. Ernst, 2006 ND 41, ¶ 1, 710 N.W.2d 678 (appealing from the denial of a motion to reverse his conviction); State v. Ernst, 2004 ND 221, ¶ 1, 691 N.W.2d 193 (appealing from the denial of an attempt to withdraw his guilty pleas).

[¶2]In Ernst’s second application for post-conviction relief, he alleges that his counsel was ineffective, the State failed to prove an essential element of indecent exposure offense, and the State’s reference to an amended version of the indecent exposure statute in its response to Ernst’s previous post-conviction motion was improper.  The district court summarily dismissed Ernst’s application, concluding his claims were either res judicata or misuse of process.

[¶3]On appeal, Ernst argues the district court erred in dismissing his second post- conviction relief application.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (6), and (7); Ernst, 2004 ND 152, ¶ 17, 683 N.W.2d 891 (failure to establish ineffective assistance of counsel); and Clark v. State, 1999 ND 78, ¶ 23, 593 N.W.2d 329 (holding that misuse of process occurs if the defendant inexcusably fails to raise an issue in an initial post-conviction application).

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 432 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 432

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain small 
businesses from the employer health insurance mandate and to modify the 
     definition of full-time employee for purposes of such mandate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2015

   Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Portman) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain small 
businesses from the employer health insurance mandate and to modify the 
     definition of full-time employee for purposes of such mandate.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Fairness in Health 
Care Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE 
              MANDATE.

    (a) Exception for Small Business Concerns.--Section 4980H(c)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
                    ``(F) Exception for small business concerns.--The 
                term `applicable large employer' shall not include any 
                employer which is a small business concern (within the 
                meaning of section 3 of the Small Business Act).''.
    (b) Definition of Full-Time Employee.--Section 4980H(c) of such 
Code is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(E), by striking ``by 120'' and 
        inserting ``by 174'', and
            (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``30 hours'' and 
        inserting ``40 hours''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 4.3
 AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
RIGHTS AGREEMENT
 Amendment No. 1 Company Rights Agent
 Rights Agreement
     1. Certain Definitions
 Acquiring Person provided however




---



##### 



Exempted Person provided however




---



##### 



2. Benefits.
 3. Severability .
 4. Descriptive Headings .
 5. Governing Law.
 6. Counterparts.
 7. Effect of Amendment.




---



##### 



Attest:
    
    
    
    ARBITRON INC.By:
    
    /s/ Sean P. Mulcahy
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Timothy T. SmithSean P. Mulcahy
    
    
    
    
    
    Timothy T. SmithExecutive Vice President, Legaland Business Affairs, ChiefLegal Officer and SecretaryAttest:
    
    
    
    THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
as Rights AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Margaret B. Lloyd
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Eon A. CanziusName: Margaret B. Lloyd
    
    
    
    
    
    Name: Eon A. CanziusTitle:     AVP
    
    
    
    
    
    Title: Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of Cynosure, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Timothy W. Baker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:

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

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



|                       |  |                                                                
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2007 |  | /s/ Timothy W. Baker                                           
|                       |  | Timothy W. Baker                                               
|                       |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7295

MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CA-94-949)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore

Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for oral argument, deny a

certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Parker v. Angelone, No. CA-94-

949 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Gale E. Klappa, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

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

 

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

 

/s/ GALE E. KLAPPA 

Gale E. Klappa 

Chief Executive Officer 

March 11, 2005 

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to Wisconsin Electric Power Company and will be retained by Wisconsin Electric Power Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered November 4, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01042-CV

SYED RAHMAN AND SABRINA RAHMAN, Appellants

V.

CHARLENE N. FOSTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-03078-2015

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated October 25, 2016, we informed 

appellants the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellants had not paid for the clerk’s 

record. We directed appellants to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the 

clerk’s record or to provide written documentation they had been found entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. On November 1, 2016, appellants informed the 

Court that they had contacted the Collin County Clerk and were told they do not have “any due 

payment also its (sic) not in their system.” 
Accordingly, we ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order, either (1) the clerk’s record; or (2) written documentation of notification to 

appellants of the amount due for the clerk’s record. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send 

a copy of this order to:

Lynne Finley

Collin County District Clerk

All Parties

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1214

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

CARLOS TOBAR,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jaime Pieras, II, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Tobar on brief pro se.

H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Sonia I. Torres-Pabón,

Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant

United States Attorney on brief for appellee.

September 4, 2003
-2-

Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Carlos Tobar appeals a district

court order that denied his motion for sentence modification

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, as amended

by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, supp. to app. C, Amendment

635 (2001). Assuming that the ten-day appeal period in Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) controls, see, e.g., United States v. Fair, 326

F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003)(collecting cases), this appeal is

timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (mailbox rule applies to

inmate's notice of appeal), Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2)(weekends and

holidays are excluded from filing periods of less than 11 days,

unless stated in calendar days). Nevertheless, the appeal fails on

another ground. 

Contrary to appellant's suggestion, Amendment 635 is not

retroactive. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c)(2002). Consequently, the

district court lacked the authority to reduce appellant's sentence

in light of this amendment. See id. § 1B1.10(a)("If none of the

amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable, a reduction in

the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

... is not authorized."); see also, United States v. Jordan, 162

F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998)(noting that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),

district court "could reduce the sentence if and only if doing so

was 'consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the

Sentencing Commission'"); United States v. Lopez-Pineda, 55 F.3d

693, 697 n.3 (1st Cir. 1995)(guideline amendment not listed in
-3-

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) may not be applied retroactively); DeSouza v.

United States, 995 F.2d 323, 324 & n. 1 (1st Cir. 1993)(per

curiam)(similar).

In view of the foregoing, the order denying appellant's 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R.

27(c).
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No: 2900-NEW]


Agency Information Collection Activity: Study on Provision of 
Interments in Veterans' Cemeteries During Weekends

AGENCY: National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Cemetery 
Administration's (NCA) emergency notice announcing the ``Study on 
Provision of Interments in Veterans' Cemeteries during Weekends,'' 
survey has been cancelled as of June 22, 2017. Public Law 114-315, 
section 304, enacted by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President 
on December 16, 2016, makes a specific request for the collection and 
reporting of the information covered by this request. NCA will be 
soliciting comments by posting questions to the general public through 
a Federal Register Notice.

DATES: Emergency notification was published in the Federal Register to 
inform the public of VA's study, Vol. 82, No. 97, Monday, May 22, 2017, 
pages 23489-23490.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise 
Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at 202-461-5870 or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2142584f554948400f4940535744580c5153584e536157400f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abc8d2c5dfc3c2ca85c3cad9ddced286dbd9d2c4d9ebddca85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor,
Department Clearance Officer, Office of Quality and Compliance, 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2017-17463 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 4.2

 

Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware on March 15, 2002

 

	
NUMBER
    	
SHARES
    
	
PB-«Number»
    	
«Shares»
    


 

CombiMatrix Corporation

 

Authorized Capital Stock 30,000,000 Shares 
 25,000,000 Shares Common Stock, Par Value $0.001 Per Share
 5,000,000 Shares Preferred Stock, Par Value $0.001 Per Share



THIS CERTIFIES THAT – «Name» – is the record holder of «AlphaNumeric» («Shares») shares of Series B 6% Convertible Preferred Stock of COMBIMATRIX CORPORATION, transferable only on the share register of said corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed or assigned.

 

This Certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the corporation and any amendments thereto, to all of which the holder of this Certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents.

 

A statement of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon the respective classes or series of shares of stock of the corporation and upon the holders thereof as established by the Certificate of Incorporation may be obtained by any stockholder upon request and without charge, at the principal office of the corporation, and the corporation will furnish any stockholder, upon request and without charge, a copy of such statement.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this «Date» day of «Month», «Year».

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Mark   McDonough, President
    	
 
    	
Scott   R. Burell, Secretary
    


 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,                                                          HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO                                                                                                                                       (                      ) SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT                                             ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

 

DATED                                           ,

 

	
IN   THE PRESENCE OF
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(Stockholder)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(Witness)
    	
 
    


 

NOTICE:  THE SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
#### Frank LaMar, D.D.S., Respondent, v Kenneth R. Vasile, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[852 NYS2d 907]

Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the filing of the financial statements of Ophthalmic Imaging Systems
(Registrant) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that:

|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  March
28, 2007

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Gil Allon                               
| | Gil Allon,                                  
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer              
| | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|
|
| | /s/ Ariel Shenhar                           
| | Ariel Shenhar,                              
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer              
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130969 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, EDDIE B. ALLEN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130969 

 COA: 265427 

Oakland CC: 03-049686-NZ 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS 

CORPORATION, and DAIMLERCHRYSLER 

SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 21**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**The following companies are subsidiaries of Zale Corporation (1):Zale Delaware, Inc. (1)Zale International, Inc. (1)The following are subsidiaries of Zale Delaware, Inc.:Zale Puerto Rico, Inc. (2)Dobbins Jewelers, Inc. (3)Jewelers Financial Services, Inc. (1)Zale Life Insurance Company (4)Zale Indemnity Company (5)Jewel Re-Insurance Ltd. (6)Zale Employees Child Care Association, Inc. (5)Jewelers Credit Corporation (1)ZAP, Inc. (1)TXDC, LP (DDCC, Inc. Limited Partner) (5)DDCC, Inc. (1)The following companies are subsidiaries of Zale International, Inc.:Zale Canada Holding, LP (Zale Corporation, Limited Partner) (7)FINCO Holding, LP (Zale Canada Holding LP, Limited Partner) (7)FINCO Partnership, LP (FINCO Holding LP, Limited Partner) (7)The following company is a subsidiary of FINCO Holding, LP:Zale Canada Co. (8)The following company is a subsidiary of Zale Canada Co.:Zale Canada Diamond Sourcing, Inc. (8)State / Province / Country of Organization: