alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TRIBAL OUTREACH NOTIFICATION

USDA and American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association to Host Webinar 

Series to Build Agritourism Capacity for Native Producers

WASHINGTON, June 10, 2022 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Under

Secretary Xochitl Torres Small announced today that USDA and the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism 

Association (AIANTA) will host a free webinar series to build agritourism capacity for native producers. To 

register, visit: https://www.aianta.org/aianta-usda-webinar-series/. 

Through this series, USDA Rural Development and AIANTA will highlight resources to help native-owned 

startups and enterprises further develop and expand agriculture and agritourism opportunities in Tribal 

communities.

USDA and AIANTA will host the following sessions:

• June 14 at 10 a.m. Mountain Time: Resources for Native Agriculture Production and Conservation

• July 12 at 10 a.m. Mountain Time: Adding Value to Native Agriculture Products

• Aug. 9 at 10 a.m. Mountain Time: Developing Tribal Tourism Enterprises Based on Native Values

The webinar series seeks to empower Tribal communities to develop sustainable, thriving agriculture-related 

tourism enterprises. The series will help Tribal agriculture and tourism recover economically from the impacts 

of the COVID-19 pandemic and will help ensure Tribal producers and Tribes have equitable access to USDA

programs. It will introduce participants to resources to help with startup agricultural operations and introduce 

participants to partners and entities to explore funding programs. Participants will learn about value-added 

activities to help increase revenue from their agricultural enterprises. Industry experts will also share and 

explore lessons.

Each webinar will be 90 minutes. The webinars will offer moderated panel discussions and small group sessions 

with federal partners and Tribal entities.

If you'd like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
CONFORMED COPY

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Millicom International Cellular, S.A. a company incorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated:
March 3, 2011

By:

/s/ FRANCOIS-XAVIER ROGER Name: Francois-Xavier Roger
Title:Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
exv4w3






Exhibit 4.3




TRICO MARINE SERVICES, INC.

6.50% Senior Convertible Debentures due 2028

Issued under an Indenture dated as of May 16, 2008

With Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee




CROSS-REFERENCE SHEET (1)



This cross-reference sheet shows the location in the Indenture of the provisions inserted pursuant
to Sections 310-318(a), inclusive, of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TRUST INDENTURE	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ACT SECTION	 	 	 	 	 	INDENTURE SECTION
	SECTION 310
	 	(a)	 	 	 	7.10
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	4.02, 7.08, 7.10
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	Not applicable
	SECTION 311
	 	(a)	 	 	 	7.11
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	7.11
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	Not applicable
	SECTION 312
	 	(a)	 	 	 	2.07
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	11.03
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	11.03
	SECTION 313
	 	(a)	 	 	 	7.06
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	7.06
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	11.02
	 
	 	(d)	 	 	 	7.06
	SECTION 314
	 	(a)	 	 	 	4.03, 4.07, 4.10
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	Not applicable
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	2.04, 5.03, 7.02, 8.01, 11.04
	 
	 	(d)	 	 	 	Not applicable
	 
	 	(e)	 	 	 	11.05
	 
	 	(f)	 	 	 	7.02
	SECTION 315
	 	(a)	 	 	 	7.01
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	7.05
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	7.01
	 
	 	(d)	 	 	 	7.01, 7.02
	 
	 	(e)	 	 	 	6.11
	SECTION 316
	 	(a)(except(a)(2))	 	 	 	6.04. 6.05
	 
	 	(a)(2)	 	 	 	Not applicable
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	6.07
	 
	 	(c)	 	 	 	9.04
	SECTION 317
	 	(a)	 	 	 	6.08, 6.09
	 
	 	(b)	 	 	 	2.06
	SECTION 318
	 	(a)	 	 	 	1.02, 9.03, 11.01








 




			
	(1)	 	This Cross-Reference Sheet shall not, for any purpose, be deemed to be a part of
the Indenture.
# Building 765, New Workshop and Storage Addition **Estimated Cost Description**  **Unit Quantity**  **Unit Cost Total Cost**  Cornell 6NHP-F16K, 6" diameter food pump. Includes a stainless steel vortext tank that is 42" long and 34" wide. Motor is 7.5 HP. Pump is capable of up to 500 gpm at 55' TDH. Each 2.0 $16,800.00 $33,600 **Subtotal Direct Cost: $33,600**  Plumbing (piping from pump through-wall discharge piping, etc.) 13.3 $4,469 Mechanical systems (Supports for pumps, electrical, motors supports, etc, etc) NA $0 Electrical systems (wiring, switches, panel box, motor starters, etc.) 15.8 $5,309 Instrumentation (PLCs, sensors, hardware, software, etc.) NA $0 Sitework (clearing, grading, surveying) NA $0 **Total Direct Cost: $43,378**  Engineering 8.0 $3,470 Permits 2.0 $868 Scheduling 0.8 $347 Performance bonds 2.5 $1,084 Insurance (risk, equipment floater, public liability) 2.3 $998 Contractor markup (handling, procuring, subcontracting, change orders, etc.) 10.0 $4,338 Overhead and profit 10.0 $4,338 **Total Indirect Cost: $15,442**  **Total Base Cost: $58,820**  % of total direct cost % of total direct cost % of total direct cost % of total direct cost % of total direct cost % of total direct cost % of subtotal direct cost % of subtotal direct cost % of subtotal direct cost % of subtotal direct cost % of subtotal direct cost % of total direct cost

Page 1 of 4 December 2002

# Building 765, New Workshop and Storage Addition **Estimated Cost Notes:**  1. Pump costs from Alard Equipment Company, Williamson, NY 2. Cost factors obtained fromRSMeans Building Construction Cost Data, 68th Edition, 2010.

Page 2 of 4 December 2002

# Building 765, New Workshop and Storage Addition **Estimated Cost**

**Notes** 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2

Page 3 of 4 December 2002

# Building 765, New Workshop and Storage Addition **Estimated Cost**

Page 4 of 4 December 2002
Exhibit 10.16 

**Summary of Amendment dated December 14, 2006 to Severance Agreement**

**dated September 17, 2003between the Registrant and Ali Haghighi Mood**

On December 14, 2006, the Board of Directors approved an amendment of the SeveranceAgreement dated September 17, 2003 between the Registrant and Ali Haghighi Mood increasing the period during which Mr. Haghighi Mood will be entitled to receive severance pay in the event that the Registrant terminates his employment without Cause(as defined in the Severance Agreement) from six months to twelve months. 

Ali Haghighi-Mood 

December14, 2006 

Page 2 

If the foregoing is inaccordance with your understanding, please sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter, whereupon this letter and such copy will constitute a binding amendment under seal to the Severance Agreement between the Company and you on the basis setforth above. 

Very truly yours, 

CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

By: /s/ Robert P. Khederian            

Name: Robert P. Khederian 

Title: Interim President & CEO 

Acknowledged and agreed to this 

14th day of December 2006: 

/s/ Ali Haghighi-Mood                    

Ali Haghighi-Mood 

 

-2-
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA to Host Listening Session to Help Expand Broadband Access in Tribal 

Communities Under the ReConnect Program

WASHINGTON, April 15, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced it is hosting 

a listening session on April 20, 2021, to solicit ideas on ways to help expand broadband access in tribal 

communities under the Reconnect Program.

USDA is inviting comments and recommendations from tribal communities and tribal broadband industry 

experts on a ReConnect Program final rule originally published on Feb. 26, 2021. The final rule will:

• eliminate unnecessary paperwork requirements; 

• remove outdated funding restrictions; 

• simplify eligibility requirements; and 

• create an annual notice to announce scoring criteria and other requirements each fiscal year.

USDA is requesting comments on tribal considerations regarding the ReConnect Program final rule, including

the timeframe in which USDA determines an applicant’s eligibility for funding. The department also invites 

feedback on challenges and barriers tribal communities face to access programs to finance broadband 

infrastructure on tribal lands and how USDA can improve its collaborations with other federal agencies.

The listening session will be held virtually on Tuesday, April 20, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time. To register, 

visit https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4354258874821794319. 

Topics to be discussed during the session include the following summary of comments that USDA has received 

on the rule from tribal communities to date: 

• Requirements for tribal letters of support for applicants serving tribal lands;

• Flexibilities for tribal applicants;

• Enabling tribal governments to serve their own lands; and

• Tribal authority to certify whether they are served or underserved.

Comments on the final rule must be submitted through https://www.regulations.gov by April 27, 2021. For 

additional information on how to submit comments, see page 11603 of the Feb. 26, 2021, Federal Register.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2010234EN.01002302.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/23

---

Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.

(Case C-281/10 P)

()

2010/C 234/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: PepsiCo, Inc. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, abogados, V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07,

| — | Give final judgment on the dispute by rejection the order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court and |
| --- | --- |

—

Give final judgment on the dispute by rejection the order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court and

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the grounds that the General Court violated article 25(1) (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) by:

1

| a) | failing to take into account the constraints on the designer in developing the contested design; |
| --- | --- |

a)

failing to take into account the constraints on the designer in developing the contested design;

| b) | wrongly interpreting the notion of the ‘informed user’ and his attention level; |
| --- | --- |

b)

wrongly interpreting the notion of the ‘informed user’ and his attention level;

| c) | applying erroneous criteria in its assessment of ‘different overall impression’; |
| --- | --- |

c)

applying erroneous criteria in its assessment of ‘different overall impression’;

| d) | carrying out a comparison between the designs based on actual products in the file rather than on the designs as registered; |
| --- | --- |

d)

carrying out a comparison between the designs based on actual products in the file rather than on the designs as registered;

| e) | basing the comparison on distorted facts. |
| --- | --- |

e)

basing the comparison on distorted facts.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs

1

OJ L 3, p. 1

---
# C_2012200EN.01001302.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)

(Case T-546/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MILRAM - Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of goods and signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 200/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nordmilch AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schneider, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nordmilch AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nordmilch AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1385 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1385

    To require that jewelry boxes imported from another country be 
              indelibly marked with the country of origin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 1999

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require that jewelry boxes imported from another country be 
              indelibly marked with the country of origin.

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

SECTION 1. MARKING OF IMPORTED JEWELRY BOXES.

    (a) Marking Requirement.--By no later than the date that is 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall prescribe and implement regulations that require that all jewelry 
boxes described in subsection (b) that enter, or are withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption, in the customs territory of the United 
States have the English name of the country of origin indelibly marked 
in a conspicuous place on such jewelry boxes by cutting, die-sinking, 
engraving, stamping, or some other permanent method. The exceptions 
from marking requirements provided for in section 304 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) shall not apply to jewelry boxes subject to 
this section.
  (b) Jewelry.--The jewelry boxes referred to in subsection (a) are 
jewelry boxes provided for in headings 4202.92.60, 4202.92.90, and 
4202.99.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015429EN.01002302.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/23

---

Order of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA)

(Case T-124/10) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 429/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and M. Schaeffer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Vinotasia GmbH (Coblenz, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2010 (Case R 1054/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Vinotasia GmbH and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to rule on the action.

| 2. | Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Vinotasia GmbH shall bear their own costs and each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Vinotasia GmbH shall bear their own costs and each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2015.

1

---
# C_2011340EN.01002301.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/23

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA

(Case T-346/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Borax Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Borax Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
#### Albert N. Ridgely, Respondent, v. Oscar B. Bergstrom and Henry A. Taylor, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Bergstrom & Company, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor. Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
**EXHIBIT 21**

**AFFYMETRIX, INC.LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

Affymetrix,UK Ltd, wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in the United Kingdom anddoing business under such name.

Affymetrix FranceS.A.S., wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in France and doing business undersuch name.

Affymetrix GmbH,wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Germany and doing business under suchname.

Affymetrix JapanK.K., a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Japan and doing business undersuch name.

AffymetrixPte Ltd, wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Singapore and doingbusiness under such name.

AffymetrixTechnology, Ltd, wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Bermuda and doingbusiness under such name.

GeneticMicroSystems, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in Massachusettsand doing business under such name.

Neomorphic, Inc.,wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in California and doing business undersuch name.

ParAlleleBioScience, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in California anddoing business under such name.

----