alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22150]



[[Page 47788]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10160]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``Sunken Cities: Egypt's Lost Worlds'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Sunken Cities: Egypt's Lost Worlds,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Saint Louis Art 
Museum, Saint Louis, Missouri, from on or about March 25, 2018, until 
on or about September 9, 2018, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota, from on or about October 28, 2018, until on or 
about April 14, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9be8fef8eff2f4f5a9afaea2dbe8effaeffeb5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e4d5b5d4a5751500c0a0b077e4d4a5f4a5b10595148">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. Department 
of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

 Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-22150 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., AT&T SERVICES, INC., CHARTER

COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COMCAST CABLE 

COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, COX 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DIRECTV, LLC, DISH

NETWORK LLC, SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., TIME 

WARNER CABLE INC., VERIZON 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-2186, 2016-2453, 2016-2454, 2016-2456, 2016-2459, 

2016-2460, 2016-2461, 2016-2462, 2016-2463, 2016-2464

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-02058-RGA, 1:13-cv02061-RGA, 1:13-cv-02062-RGA, 1:13-cv-02063-RGA, 

1:13-cv-02064-RGA, 1:13-cv-02065-RGA, 1:13-cv-02066-

RGA, 1:13-cv-02067-RGA, 1:13-cv-02068-RGA, 1:13-cv02069-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ 

Decided: November 1, 2017

______________________ 
2 DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY v. APPLE INC. 

 LEI MEI, Mei & Mark LLP, Washington, DC, argued 

for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by LAURENCE M.

SANDELL. 

 MICHAEL JAY, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Santa 

Monica, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Apple Inc. 

Also represented by NANDAN PADMANABHAN. 

 MICHAEL HAWES., Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, 

argued for defendants-appellees AT&T Services, Inc., 

DISH Network LLC, DirecTV, LLC. Defendant-appellee 

AT&T Services, Inc. also represented by MICHELLE 

JACOBSON EBER, ROGER FULGHUM; BRYANT C. BOREN, JR.,

Palo Alto, CA. Defendant-appellee DISH Network LLC 

also represented by BRADLEY BOWLING, ALI DHANANI,

MICHAEL SHERBY; GEORGE HOPKINS GUY, III, Palo Alto, 

CA; JAMIE ROY LYNN, Washington, DC. Defendantappellee DirecTV, LLC also represented by KEVIN GERARD 

MCBRIDE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Irvine, 

CA; JOHN WITTENZELLER, Philadelphia, PA. 

 MICHAEL MARTIN MURRAY, Winston & Strawn LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees Charter 

Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, 

LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., 

Verizon Communications, Inc. Also represented by 

MICHAEL LOUIS BRODY, Chicago, IL; GEOFFREY P. EATON, 

Washington, DC.

 MARK BAGHDASSARIAN, Kramer Levin Naftalis & 

Frankel LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendantappellee Sirius XM Radio Inc. Also represented by 

SHANNON H. HEDVAT. 

______________________ 
DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY v. APPLE INC. 3

Before MOORE, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

Dragon Intellectual Property appeals the district 

court’s Final Judgments entered pursuant to the parties’ 

stipulations of noninfringement of claims 1–4, 8, and 10 of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,930,444. Our decision today in a related case, Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DISH Network LLC et al., Nos. 2016-2468, -2492, affirms the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that claims 1–4, 

7–10, 13, and 14 of the ’444 patent are invalid. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

DISMISSED AS MOOT

COSTS

No costs.
#### Aldoro, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Gold Force International Ltd., Now Known as GF Int’l Holdings, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Gary M. Jacobs et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[859 NYS2d 154]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, IH, J.), entered November 28, 2007, which, in an action arising out of the sale of goods, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to plaintiff to replead its fraud claims against the individual defendants, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint so as to allege *224breach of fiduciary duty and the aiding and abetting of that breach, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The sole theory underlying plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim, the so-called “trust fund doctrine,” under which persons in control of an insolvent corporation must hold the corporation’s remaining assets in trust for the benefit of its creditors, cannot be invoked by a “simple contract creditor” like plaintiff, who has not yet obtained a judgment on the debt and had execution returned unsatisfied *(Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank,*94 NY2d 541, 549-550 [2000]). As plaintiff does not have a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the debtor defendant and its principals, it cannot have claims against the other defendants for aiding and abetting that breach. Plaintiff, however, was properly granted leave to replead fraud claims against the individual defendants alleging that when they gave plaintiff postdated checks in payment for the goods, they knew that their company was insolvent and that the checks would not be paid on presentment *(see Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc.,*68 NY2d 954 [1986]). We have considered plaintiffs other claims and arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 33821(U).]
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 24.2

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned director of
Mymetics Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, does make, constitute and appoint
John M. Musacchio, with full power and authority, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report of Mymetics Corporation on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001, and to file such Annual Report, so signed,
with all exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby
further granting unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and
perform any and all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do
in person, the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney
and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS HEREUNTO SET HIS HAND AND SEAL
THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002.



                                                     /s/ Patrice Pactol
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Patrice Pactol, Director
#### THANT CHIT MIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71454.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 17, 2011.

*607R. Wayne McMillan, Law Office of R. Wayne McMillan, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kathryn Deangelis, OIL, Hillel Ryder Smith, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Hillel Ryder Smith,

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Thant Chit Min, a native and citizen of Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Min suffered past persecution based on being detained once, hit five times, and told to cease his activities. *See id.*at 1020-21 (petitioner did not establish past persecution where the petitioner was arrested and detained for three days, interrogated, and struck with a rod ten times). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that Min demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution in Burma. *See id.*at 1021-22. Accordingly, Min’s asylum claim fails.

*608Because Min failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th*Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Min failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Burma. *See Singh v. Gonzales, 439*F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT
10.4
 
 FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE
 EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
 ENTERED
INTO AS OF JUNE 1, 1999
 BETWEEN
 CARVER
FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
 AND
DEBORAH C. WRIGHT
 
 Carver
Federal Savings Bank, a federally chartered stock savings bank organized and
existing under the laws of the United States of America (the “Bank”) has entered
into an Employment Agreement as of June 1, 1999 (the “Agreement”) with Deborah
C. Wright (“Wright”), whereby Wright is employed as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Bank.  The Bank and Wright now desire to
amend the Agreement by adding a Section 30 to comply with the provisions of the
Capital Purchase Program of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to read as follows:
 
 “30
              Compliance with the
      Capital Purchase Program of the Troubled Asset Relief Program
      (TARP).
 
 Notwithstanding
anything in this Agreement to the contrary, during the period that the U.S.
Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) holds a debt or equity position in Carver
Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) in connection with the Capital Purchase Program,
the Company shall be entitled to recover the amount of any bonus or compensation
credited or paid to any Participant under this Agreement that is reasonably
determined at any time by the Company to have been calculated or based on
materially inaccurate financial statements or other materially inaccurate
performance metric criteria.
 
 No
Participant may receive any payment under this Agreement during the period that
the Treasury holds a debt or equity position in the Company pursuant to the
Capital Purchase Program if the receipt of such payment alone or when added to
any other payment would cause such Participant to receive an “excess parachute
payment” within the meaning of Section 280G (and specifically giving effect to
subsection (e) thereof) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Section 280G limitation”).  The Company shall retain the final
authority to reduce or eliminate entirely any payouts pursuant to this Plan to
give full effect to the Section 280G limitation set forth in this
paragraph.”
 
 All other
terms and conditions in the Agreement remain in full force and
effect.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amended Employment
Agreement as of the 14TH  day
of January, 2009.
 
 Carver
      Federal Savings BankBy:
                      /s/Mark
      A. RiccaExecutive
      Vice President, Chief Risk Officer and General Counsel/s/Deborah
      C. Wright
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 Quarterly Report of Inova Technology, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009, (the “Report”), as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adam Radly,
        Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 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 of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 By:
        /s/
        Adam Radly
 
 Adam
        Radly
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 March
        13, 2009
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2951 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include vision restoration 

therapy devices and associated software used in the patient’s home to 

treat impaired visual function due to acquired brain injury within the 

definition of durable medical equipment under the Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2009 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr. GRAYSON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include 

vision restoration therapy devices and associated software 

used in the patient’s home to treat impaired visual function due to acquired brain injury within the definition 

of durable medical equipment under the Medicare Program. 

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


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2951 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restorative and En3 hanced Vision Access for Medicare Patients (REVAMP) 

4 Act of 2009’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF VISION RESTORATION 

6 THERAPY DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED SOFT7 WARE AS DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(n) of the Social Se9 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘includes’’; and 

11 (2) by inserting before the semicolon the fol12 lowing: ‘‘, and includes vision restoration therapy de13 vices and associated software that are used in the 

14 patient’s home and that have been cleared or ap15 proved by the Food and Drug Administration for the 

16 treatment of impaired visual function’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 subsection (a) shall apply to items furnished on or after 

19 January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elias ARZOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10750

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern Dis*375trict of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roderick Christopher White, Law Offices of Roderick C. White, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Elias Arzola has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Arzola has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Arzola’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Arzola’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Arzola’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Edward Suydam, the Chief Executive Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.  /s/ Edward Suydam Edward Suydam Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Nano Mask, Inc.  June 30, 2011
Order filed December 1, 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00155

- CV

____________ REGINALD PETTEWAY , Appellant

V.
TEXAS DOW EMPLOYEE'S CREDIT UNION , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law # 4 and Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CI044286



### O R D E R
Appellant = s brief was due November 21, 2011

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant submits his brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before December 15, 2011 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Order entered March 19, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01384-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.V.K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-19679

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated December 2, 2014, we 

notified the official court reporter for the 256th Judicial District Court that the reporter’s record 

was overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, we 

have not received any response. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter Glenda Johnson to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no 

hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not requested the record. 

We notify appellant that if we receive verification she has not requested the reporter’s record, we 

will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### ENERWASTE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENERGO SRL, an Italian company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-35524.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Denise Ashbaugh, John H. Chun, Summit Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric D. Lansverk, Louis David Peterson, Esquire, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

Before: McKEOWN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

EnerWaste International Corp. appeals from the district court’s order declaring the parties’ forum selection clause unenforceable and dismissing the action on the basis of forum non conveniens. We reverse and remand.

*687The forum selection clause is not ambiguous, because any reasonable person would understand it to designate the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington as the exclusive forum for resolving disputes arising from the contract. *See Doe 1 v. AOL LLC,*552 F.3d 1077, 1081-82 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Nor is the clause unenforceable on the basis of unreasonableness. Although most of the witnesses and evidence are located in Italy, Energo has not shown that proceeding in Washington would be “so gravely difficult and inconvenient” that it would effectively be denied its day in court. *M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,*407 U.S. 1, 18, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). The district court abused its discretion by holding otherwise. *See Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc.,*741 F.2d 273, 280-81 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1984).

The forum selection clause being enforceable, the forum non conveniens doctrine does not apply, *see id.*at 281, and EnerWaste is entitled to proceed in the Western District of Washington.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.