alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8.1



Subsidiaries of Can-FiteBioPharma
Ltd.



The following table sets forth the name and jurisdiction
of incorporation of our subsidiaries as of March 29, 2016.



|                                                             |  | Jurisdiction of  
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                           |  | Incorporation    
|                                                             |  |                  
|OphthaliX Inc.                                               |  | Delaware         
|                                                             |  |                  
|Eye-Fite Limited (wholly owned subsidiary of OphthaliX Inc.) |  | Israel           
|                                                             |  |                  
|Ultratrend Limited                                           |  | England and Wales
#### Camille B. Johnston, as Administratrix, etc., of William G. Johnston, Deceased, Respondent, v. Syracuse Lighting Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kruse, J., who dissented upon the ground that the evidence shows that it was the duty of the deceased to make such an inspection as the court charged would make the deceased guilty of contributory negligence if he had made such inspection and failed to discover the defect.
§ 115.418 What types of trust funds may a minor have? A minor may have one or more of the following types of trust funds: ( a ) Judgment per capita funds: Withdrawals may only be made upon BIA approval of an application made under Public Law 97-458. See 25 CFR 1.2.
( b ) Tribal per capita funds: Withdrawals may only be made under a BIA approved distribution plan and in accordance with the terms of the tribe's per capita resolution/document.
( c ) Other trust funds: Withdrawals may only be made under a minor's BIA-approved distribution plan that is based on a justified unmet need for the minor's health, education, or welfare.
( d ) Funds from other federal agencies (e.g., SSA, SSI, VA) received for the benefit of the minor: Withdrawals must be made only under a BIA-approved distribution plan that must be consistent with the disbursing agency's (e.g., SSA, SSI, VA) allowable uses for the funds.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III Statement on U.S.-Papua New Guinea Defense Cooperation Agreement 

DoD Immediate Release

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

Appellant

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1422

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

- 00769

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b)

. Case: 23-1422 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2023WSOU I NVESTMENTS LLC V

. J UNIPER N ETWORKS

, I NC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

December 4, 2023

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 4, 2023 Case: 23-1422 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID STROWHOUER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 310 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 99 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 99

   To amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation 
   Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

 Mr. Shuster (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Lipinski) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation 
   Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,205,000,000'' and all 
that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: 
``$2,347,000,000 for fiscal years ending before October 1, 1999.''.
    (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) is amended by 
striking ``March 31, 1999'' and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.

SEC. 2. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

    Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.

SEC. 3. FAA OPERATIONS.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations From General Fund.--Section 
106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at the end 
and inserting the following: ``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations From Trust Fund.--Section 
48104(c) of such title is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Fiscal Years 
        1994-1998'' and inserting ``Fiscal Years 1994-2000''; and
            (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
        ``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
    (c) Limitation on Obligating or Expending Amounts.--Section 
48108(c) of such title is amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting 
``2000''.

SEC. 4. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.

    Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (g); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

WILLIE ROOSEVELT MORRING MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0821-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON APRIL 29, 1997 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Luther C. Edmonds, Judge Wesley A. Murphy for appellant. Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Willie Roosevelt Morring was convicted of possession of a concealed firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308 and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. He appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth and given all inferences fairly

deducible therefrom. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). Furthermore, the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - credibility of the witnesses and the weight assigned their testimony are matters exclusively for the fact finder. See Coppola v. Commonwealth , 220 Va. 243, 252, 257 S.E.2d 797, 803 (1979). Indeed, if the fact finder believes a defendant did not tell the truth, he may reject the defendant’s testimony and infer that the defendant lied to conceal guilt. See Black v.

Commonwealth , 222 Va. 838, 840, 284 S.E.2d 608, 609 (1981). The trial court in this case believed the testimony of the police officers. The officers testified that Morring was reaching in an area where a loaded gun was later found. The court rejected Morring’s own testimony that contradicted the officers’ and may have inferred guilt from his lying. The evidence amply supports a conviction for possession of a concealed weapon.

Affirmed.
#### § 137.5 Construction costs limited.

The repayment contract[1] with the San Carlos irrigation and drainage district, page 13 thereof, contains the following:

In accordance with the foregoing the costs of the San Carlos project as fixed by the public notice to be issued as aforesaid, unless further sums shall be agreed to by the Secretary of the Interior and the district after the execution of this instrument, may amount to but shall not exceed the sum of $9,556,313.77, except that said total may be exceeded by the inclusion of any sums expended to safeguard the project as hereinabove provided for, and any sums expended on account of contingent liabilities as in the next paragraph hereof provided.

The foregoing and subsequent statements of project costs, the district's shares of which are to be repaid hereunder, unless otherwise provided by Congress more favorably to the lands of the project, may be increased by the addition of sums not now fixed as project charges but which possibly constitute contingent project liabilities incurred after the date of the San Carlos Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 476), or incurred on account of the Florence-casa Grande project, and so may become project charges by the judgment of courts of competent jurisdiction or of other proper authority.

The limitations therein fixed has approximately been reached, there remaining but $32,815.02 yet to be expended on project works before reaching that limitation. Upon the expenditure of this additional sum there shall be no further expenditures of funds for construction, operation and maintenance of the San Carlos project so far as the private lands are concerned until the San Carlos irrigation and drainage district shall, through appropriate action, authorize pursuant to the terms of the said repayment contract such additional expenditures. This limitation does not apply to project expenditures for the extension of the distributing and pumping system regardless of where they may arise. This class of expenditures being excepted from the limitation on expenditures contained in the said repayment contract by section 14, page 10, thereof, which section is known as the “Equalization of Expenditures.”

###### Footnotes -
  137.5

[1] Contract available at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C.
April.12,2013
Docket Operations M-30 West Building Ground FloorW12-140 1200 New Jersey 

### Ave., .SE Washington, DC 20590;3 14.Af"ord./Vt.rtth,Jtrea 

### g_(J. {lJoa;d';:JTJ Y/-8 .lfRfa.(J'&**~&801**

United States ofAmerica Department ofTransportation Office ofSecretary Washington, D.C. Re: Docket DOX-OST-1997-2605 DearMr. Secretary: flYwrt.e, (4o6)2s2 -so74 fTa£O (4o6)284-64-tJ enuzd.· harjxzdaw@FI'lOV.neb

We the undersigned, long-time small business owners, tax payers and residents ofMiles City, MT do strongly urge you to STOP the proposed termination ofEssential Air Service to our community. · Miles City is an economic hub for eastern Montana. We are a frontier community, being more than 150 miles from our largest city in Montana, Billings, and more than 500 miles from any major city like Denver orMinneapolis. Public transportation is a necessity for our community to thrive. At present we onlyhave once a daybus service and that has periodicallybeen interrupted. Air service is a must for our medical community, for business travelers, and for all our citizens uot able to travelbybus or automobile. We have medical specialiststhat visit our communityregularly. For example, last summer I (Deborah) had major back surgery and myneurosurgeon made monthly visits to Miles City. He could service manypatients with office visits in one day, therefore, making it easier for the elderly and very ill to make appointments without having to drive 150 miles to Billings. When they changed scheduling for Miles City and the doctor and his staffcould no longer fly, they have cut wayback on their visits as it necessitates more time for travel and less for patients.

# .. Re: Docket DOX-OST-1997-2605, page 2

We once again urge you to stop the proposed termination ofEssential Air Service to Miles City and Lewistown. These communities are anjntegral part ofthe service to all ofeastern Montana.
With concerted effort from all parties, we are certain that the Department ofTransportation could redesign the service to ensure that we have the public transportation we deserve and need.
§ 304.8 Appeals. ( a ) *Appeals of adverse determinations.* If you are dissatisfied with the response to your request, you may appeal an adverse determination denying your request, in any respect, to the Chairman of the agency. You must make your appeal in writing, by email or letter, and it must be received by the agency within 90 calendar days of the date of the agency's response denying your request. Your appeal should provide reasons and supporting information as to why the initial determination was incorrect. The appeal should clearly identify the particular determination (including the assigned request number, if known) that you are appealing. For the quickest possible handling of a mail request, you should mark your appeal “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” The Chairman or his or her designee will act on the appeal, except that an appeal ordinarily will not be acted on if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
( b ) *Responses to appeals.* The decision on your appeal will be communicated to you by email or letter, ordinarily within 20 working days of receipt of your appeal. A decision affirming an adverse determination in whole or in part will contain a statement of the reason(s) for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform you of the FOIA provisions for court review of the decision. The decision will also inform you of the mediation services offered by OGIS as a non-exclusive alternative to FOIA litigation. If the adverse determination is reversed or modified on appeal, in whole or in part, then you will be notified in a written decision and your request will be reprocessed in accordance with that appeal decision.
( c ) *Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS.* Mediation is a voluntary process. If the agency agrees to participate in the mediation services provided by OGIS, it will actively engage in the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
( d ) *When appeal is required.* As a general rule, if you wish to seek review by a court of any adverse determination, you must first appeal it in a timely fashion under this section.
[82 FR 7633, Jan. 23, 2017]
### Quaternary stratigraphy of the La Sal Mountains, Utah

By: G.M. Richmond

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp324

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Quaternary stratigraphy of the La Sal Mountains, Utah(1955)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
**Exhibit13.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

Theundersigned, who is carrying out the functions of chief financial officer forBrookfield Renewable Energy Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”) pursuant to anAmended and Restated Master Services Agreement, dated January 20, 2014, by andamong Brookfield Asset Management Inc., the Partnership, Brookfield RenewableEnergy L.P. and others, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to his knowledge, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof, (i) the annual report of the Partnership on Form 20-F for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Annual Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained in the AnnualReport fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership. 

Dated: March 17, 2014 

 

|   | /s/ Sachin Shah                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Sachin  Shah                            |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer of its Service |
|   | Provider, BRP Energy Group L.P.         |
|   |                                    |

 

- 1 -*** ***

----
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of GasLog Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Bermuda (the Company), for the period ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of
  the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    |  | Date: March 28, 2013                
|By: |  | /s/ Henrik Bjerregaard              
|    |  | Name: Henrik
      Bjerregaard      
|    |  | Title: Chief Financial
      Officer



---
# C_2013273EN.01001602.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/16

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2013/C 273/09

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 27.8.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 27.8.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or group of stocks | PLE/7FG. |
| Species | Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) |
| Zone | VIIf and VIIg |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 45/TQ39 |

Date and time of closure

27.8.2013

Duration

27.8.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

Belgium

Stock or group of stocks

PLE/7FG.

Species

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

Pleuronectes platessa

Zone

VIIf and VIIg

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

45/TQ39

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  John Ask / Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6 th Floor        | 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102 |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Newark, DE  19711 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets, LLC |
| Attn:  John Ask                       | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 12 th Floor, MC 482-B12-C24 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2011-5 (the “Issuer”) |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of November 16, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |