alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERUNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

 

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Morria BiopharmaceuticalsPLC (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

(i)      theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)      theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

 

Dated: March 21, 2013

 

/s/Mark Cohen

 

Mark Cohen

 

Executive Chairman

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompanythe Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or afterthe date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
§ 9004.11 Winding down costs. ( a ) *Winding down costs. Winding down costs* are costs associated with the termination of the candidate's general election campaign such as complying with the post-election requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, and other necessary administrative costs associated with ending the campaign, including office space rental, staff salaries, and office supplies. Winding down costs are qualified campaign expenses.
( b ) *Winding down limitation.* The total amount of winding down costs that may be paid for with public funds shall not exceed the lesser of: ( 1 ) 2.5% of the expenditure limitation pursuant to 11 CFR 110.8(a)(2); or
( 2 ) 2.5% of the total of: ( i ) The candidate's expenditures subject to the expenditure limitation as of the end of the expenditure report period; plus
( ii ) The candidate's expenses exempt from the expenditure limitation as of the end of the expenditure report period; except that
( iii ) The winding down limitation shall be no less than $100,000.
( c ) *Allocation of primary and general election winding down costs.* A candidate who runs in both the primary and general election may divide winding down expenses between his or her primary and general election committees using any reasonable allocation method. An allocation method is reasonable if it divides the total winding down costs between the primary and general election committees and results in no less than one third of total winding down costs allocated to each committee. A candidate may demonstrate that an allocation method is reasonable even if either the primary or the general election committee is allocated less than one third of total winding down costs.
[68 FR 47416, Aug. 8, 2003]
### §9023a. Legislative Liaison of the Space Force

(a) Establishment.—There is a Legislative Liaison of the Space Force.

(b) Functions.—The Legislative Liaison shall perform legislative affairs functions under the direction of the Chief of Space Operations.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title V, §509B, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 243.)
# C_2007096EN.01000303.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-195/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public supply contract for catering equipment - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency)

(2007/C 96/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and K. Wiedner, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: A. Tiemann and M. Lumma, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. G. Sevenster and C.M. Wissels and by P. van Ginneken, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Purchase by a public undertaking of institutional kitchen equipment — Obligation of transparency

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

1

---
#### § 81.15 How are conflicting proposals to amend a single document handled?

When conflicting proposals to amend a single provision of a tribal governing document or charter provision are submitted, the proposal first received by the Local Bureau Official, if properly submitted as a complete tribal request, must be voted on before any consideration is given other proposals. Other proposals must be considered in order of their receipt if they are resubmitted following final agency action on the first submission. This procedure applies regardless of whether the proposal is a new or revised tribal governing document.
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (No. 333-49284) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-26797, 333-30771,333-39213, 333-39189, 333-69761, 333-69765, 333-93413, 333-93407 and 333-67790)of Vital Images, Inc. of our report dated February 6, 2002 relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in thisForm 10-K.

 

 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 27, 2002
#### § 9002.3 Commission.

*Commission* means the Federal Election Commission.

[56 FR 35911, July 29, 1991, as amended at 82 FR 60854, Dec. 26, 2017]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 52-012 And 52-013; NRC-2010-0126]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Jessie Muir, Environmental Projects Branch 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7-E30, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Ms. Muir may be contacted by telephone at 301-415-0491 or via e-mail at                         *Jessie.Muir@nrc.gov.*

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February, 2011.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Scott Flanders,

Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors.

[FR Doc. 2011-4677 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Frank J. Longo et al. *v.*Salvatore Micucci

*Mark C. Yellin*and *Richard M. Rittenband,*in support of the motion.

*Alexander A. Goldfarb,*in opposition.

Submitted March 1

decided March 20, 1974

The defendant’s motion for review of the order of the trial court terminating the stay of execution in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted and the relief sought therein is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5027]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA268


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a meeting of its Sea Turtle Advisory Committee (STAC) in Honolulu, 
HI.

DATES: The STAC meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, from 
8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Thursday, March 24, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 
12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Council Office Conference 
Room, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI; telephone: (808) 
522-8220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 
telephone: (808) 522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The STAC will review the Council's 2010 sea 
turtle conservation projects and other relevant activities and may 
produce recommendations for future program direction.

Agenda

8:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 23, 2011

    1. Introduction.
    2. Approval of the Agenda.
    3. Review of Recommendations from the 6th STAC Meeting.
    4. Overview of 2010-11 Council Sea Turtle Program.
    5. Update of Sea Turtle Interactions in Hawaii-based Fisheries.
    6. Review of 2010 Sea Turtle Projects.

8:30 a.m., Thursday, March 24, 2011

    7. Review of 2010 Sea Turtle Projects (Continued).
    8. Overview of Agency Activities.
    9. Other Projects and Issues of Interest.
    10. Recommendations from the STAC.
    11. Next Meeting and Meeting Wrap-up.
    The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The 
Committee will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled 
business.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 
522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 2, 2011.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5027 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
EPA Reg. No. 70506-4

Vol. 1 - part 2
Notes: 

This spreadsheet only goes back to 1999 and there are likely to be other releases that were not 

documented in the USDA/ARS plant variety release records. There may be additional releases not 

shown here. 
ARS Sugarcane Release Notices Release Date Comments

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 89-1509 1/31/1999

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar HoCP 91-555 9/19/1999

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 92-1213 1/13/2000

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 92-1666 1/13/2000

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 92-1641 1/13/2000

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar TCP 93-4245 12/7/2001

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 94-1100 6/18/2003

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 94-1340 6/18/2003

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 89-2376 6/18/2003

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar HoCP 96-540 8/15/2003

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 96-1252 4/1/2004

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 96-1602 4/1/2004

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Variety Ho 95-988 8/23/2004

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Variety L 97-128 10/28/2004 not ARS-led

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 97-1944 12/6/2004

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 97-1989 12/6/2004

Notice of Release of Sugarcane Cultivar CP 98-1029 8/30/2005

Notice of Release of HOCP 00-950 'Sugarcane Cultivar' 6/25/2007

Notice of Release of HOCP 91-552 'Sugarcane Cultivar' 7/9/2007 not ARS-led

Notice of Release of HO 00-961 'SugarCane' 7/9/2007 not ARS-led

Notice of Release of a High Fiber Sugarcane Variety L 79-1002 7/17/2007 not ARS-led

CP 01-1372, Sugarcane Saccharum 12/15/2008
CPCL 97-2730, Sugarcane Saccharum 12/15/2008

CPCL 99-4455, Sugarcane 12/15/2009

Sugarcane Cultivar CP 03-1912 2/18/2011

Sugarcane Cultivar CPCL 00-4111 2/18/2011

CPCL 02-0296, Sugarcane 9/30/2011

CPCL 02-1295, Sugarcane 9/30/2011

CPCL 95-2287, Sugarcane 9/30/2011

CPCL 04-1844, Sugarcane 9/30/2011

CP 04-1844, Sugarcane 9/30/2011

CP 04-1566, Sugarcane 9/30/2011

HOCP 04-838, Sugarcane 11/7/2011

Sugarcane Variety L 03-371 not ARS-led

Sugarcane Variety L 01-299 not ARS-led

HO 02-113, Sugarcane 1/12/2012

CPCL 05-1791, Sugarcane 10/16/2012

CP 05-1526, Sugarcane 10/16/2012

CPCL 02-6848, Sugarcane 10/16/2012

CPCL 05-1102, Sugarcane 10/16/2012

CPCL 05-1201, Sugarcane 10/16/2012
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 557 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 19, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 1102) to provide for pension reform, and for other purposes. The bill 
shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended 
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in H.R. 4843 shall be 
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by 
Representative Rangel or his designee, which shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 166.300 How is Indian agricultural land managed?

Tribes, individual Indian landowners, and the BIA will manage Indian agricultural land either directly or through contracts, compacts, cooperative agreements, or grants under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended).
# C_2006310EN.01002903.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Autobedrijf Nelissen St. Geertruid v Commission

(Case T-287/99) (1)

1

(2006/C 310/60)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.

1

---
1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 25 1- CV L YD I A E S T HE R R ODR I GUE Z AP P E L L ANT V . V I C TO R M A N U EL RO D RI G U EZ A PPELL EE

----- ----- FR O M THE 2 11 DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY TH

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON AND J UDGME NT 1

----- ----- W e h a v e c o n s i d e re d “ A p p e l l a n t’sU n o p p o s e d M o ti o n T o D i s m i s sA p p e a l .” I t i s t h e c o u rt’so p i n i o n th a t th e m o ti o n s h o u l d b e g ra n te d ; th e re fo re , w e d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l . S eeT EX. R . A PP . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 4 3 .2 (f). C os t s o f t he app ea l s hal l bepa i d byap pel l ant , f orw hi ch l etex ec ut i on i s s u e . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 43. 4.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL D : DA U PH I N O T, H O LM A N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ.DEL I VERE D: J ul y 10, 2008
-  Home 
-  About 

# In This Section

                      -  Who We Are 
                      -  PHMSA Guidance 
                      -  Organization 
                      -  Leadership 
                      -  PHMSA FAQs 
                      -  Careers 
                      -  Working with PHMSA 

## Contact Us

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Phone:**202-366-4433****Fax:**202-366-3666**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Safety

## Safety Programs

Please find links to topics relating to Safety Programs.
                      - Grants
                      - Hazardous Materials Outreach & Training
                      - Hazardous Materials Safety Enhancement Program
                      - International Program
                      - Pipeline Safety Awareness and Outreach
                      - Pipeline Safety Training
                      - Pipeline State Programs
                      - Research and Development
                      - Rural Safety
#### Elmer Saltz, appellant, v. School District of Norfolk, in the County of Madison, in the State of Nebraska, a political subdivision, appellee.

305 N.W.2d 635

Filed May 8, 1981.

No. 43311.

Theodore L. Kessner and Mark D. McGuire of Crosby, Guenzel, Davis, Kessner & Kuester for appellant.

Jewell, Otte, Gatz, Collins & Domina for appellee.

Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, White, and Hastings, JJ.

Clinton, J.

This is an appeal from the Commission of Industrial Relations. The plaintiff, Elmer Saltz, is a certificated teacher employed by the School District of Norfolk, in the County of Madison, in the State of Nebraska. During the 1978-79 contract year, the plaintiffs employment was governed by the terms and conditions of an agreement negotiated by the labor organization, of which he was a member, and the school district.

The plaintiff filed a petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations in which he sought an order of the *741CIR finding that he was entitled to 1 day of paid personal leave taken in accordance with the negotiated personal leave policy of the school district, and for an order directing the school district to pay to the plaintiff l/186th of his 1978-79 salary allegedly wrongfully withheld as a result of the school district denying a day of paid personal leave. He also sought an order directing the school district to remove from his personnel file a letter of reprimand. Personal leave policy was governed by the terms of the negotiated labor agreement.

The CIR dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction under our holding in *Transport Workers of America v. Transit Auth. of City of Omaha,*205 Neb. 26, 286 N.W.2d 102 (1979). The plaintiff appeals to this court and urges that *Transport Workers of America*be overruled. Among other arguments made, the plaintiff points out that in the case of *Minshull v. School Dist. of Sutherland,*198 Neb. 418, 253 N.W.2d 45 (1977), this court affirmed a judgment of the CIR involving a matter similar to that here involved and in principle the same. We simply point out that in *Minshull,*no jurisdictional question or issue as to the definition of industrial dispute was raised by the parties and that decision preceded our decision in *Transport Workers of America.*

In *Transport Workers of America*we held: “The Commission of Industrial Relations’ authority to resolve disputes concerning terms, tenure, or conditions of employment is limited to situations in which the parties have not yet reached agreement. Once an agreement is reached and a subsequent breach is alleged to have occurred, the parties are required to litigate their dispute in a competent court having jurisdiction of the matter.” (Syllabus of the court.)

We adhere to that holding. The order of the Commission of Industrial Relations dismissing the plaintiff’s petition is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    160,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               386,560
<PP&E>                                         350,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                 215,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 749,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,545
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           252
<OTHER-SE>                                     438,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,219
<SALES>                                        503,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               672,732
<CGS>                                          270,712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  403,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               190,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,192
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
        

</TABLE>