alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 201.94 Information as to business; furnishing of by packers, swine contractors, live poultry dealers, stockyard owners, market agencies, and dealers.

Each packer, swine contractor, live poultry dealer, stockyard owner, market agency, and dealer, upon proper request, shall give to the Secretary or his duly authorized representatives in writing or otherwise, and under oath or affirmation if requested by such representatives, any information concerning the business of the packer, swine contractor, live poultry dealer, stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer which may be required in order to carry out the provisions of the Act and regulations in this part within such reasonable time as may be specified in the request for such information.

[73 FR 62440, Oct. 21, 2008]
#### § 7.4 Additional information.

An applicant may be required to submit any additional information or documentation that the Commission considers relevant for an informed decision on the application for authorization under this part. The information or documents must take the form, and must be submitted within the time, that the Commission prescribes. An applicant may also be required to provide within a specified time additional copies of the application, or any of the additional information or documents that are filed, to the Commission or to any person, agency, Indian Tribe or other entity that the Commission specifies. If an applicant fails to provide timely additional information, documents, or copies of submitted materials as required, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (Director) may dismiss the application, hold it in abeyance, or take other appropriate action under this chapter or the Federal Power Act.
Exhibit




Exhibit 10.11D


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SITAGLIPTIN SUPPLY AGREEMENT




AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SITAGLIPTIN CATALYST SUPPLY AGREEMENT effective as of December 4, 2015 (this “Amendment”) by and between Codexis, INC, (the “Vendor”), a Delaware corporation, having a place of business at 200 Penobscot Drive, Redwood City, CA 94063 (“CODEXIS”) and MERCK SHARP and DOHME CORP. (the “Company”), having a place of business at One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100. (“MERCK”)
W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the parties are party to that certain SITAGLIPTIN CATALYST SUPPLY AGREEMENT dated as of February 1st 2012 as amended as of October 1, 2013 and as of February 25, 2015, as the same may have been amended to the effective date of this Amendment (as so amended, the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to modify the term of the Agreement as more fully set forth below;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Additions and changes made to the contract in this Amendment.


		
	1.01
	Agreement Term pursuant to section 12.1 of the Agreement shall be renewed for an additional (5) years through February 1, 2022.


		
	1.02
	This amended term will be effective on December 4, 2015.


		
	2.
	Miscellaneous


		
	2.01
	Effect of Amendment; Joinder.  Except as expressly changed by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its stated terms.  The Agreement and the Schedules and Exhibits thereto, as amended by this Amendment and all preceding amendments, set forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.  There are no agreements, restrictions, promises, warranties, covenants or undertakings other than those expressly set forth or referred to therein.  The Agreement and the Schedules and Exhibits thereto, as amended by this Amendment, supersede all prior agreements and undertakings between the parties with respect to such subject matter.


		
	2.02
	Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed by the parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered is deemed an original.  All such counterparts together constitute but one and the same instrument. 


		
	2.03
	Definitions. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective definitions assigned to such terms in the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be signed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date and year first written above.
	
							
	CODEXIS INC.
	 
	MERCK SHARP and DOHME CORP.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By: 
	/s/ John J. Nicols
	 
	By: 
	By: 
	/s/  Nick Anousis

	 
	Name:
	John J. Nicols
	 
	 
	Name:
	Nick Anousis

	 
	Title:
	President and CEO
	 
	 
	Title:
	Director, API/Intermediates Procurement

	 
	Date:
	December 4, 2015
	 
	 
	Date:
	December17, 2015
# C_2013108EN.01000701.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/7

---

Order of the Court of 6 December 2012 — GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-682/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 - Authentication of euro coins - Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation - Article 8(2) - Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person directly concerned)

2013/C 108/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and M. Simm, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS v Parliament and Council, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1) — Acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons — Condition of direct concern

GS

Parliament and Council

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 99.1



Supplemental Segment Information

|                                   | Three Months Ended
April 30, | Year Ended 
April 30,
|---------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------
|In thousands                       | 2007                         | 2006                 
|Orders Received:                   |                              |                      
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $82,494                      | $  73,466            
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 55,961                       | 49,481               
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 22,104                       | 18,578               
|                                   | $160,559                     | $141,525             







|                                   | April 30,
2007 | April 30,
2006
|---------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------
|Backlog:                           |                |               
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $1,557         | $  2,699      
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 43,197         | 40,514        
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 2,600          | 357           
|                                   | $47,354        | $43,570
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PIERRE WOODLAND MEADOWS, LLC, d/b/a THE OSPREY,

Appellant,

v.

KAC 2021-1 LLC, as assignee to IREGENA PERCENTIE,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1712

[January 24, 2024]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the County Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sara Alijewicz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

50-2023-SC-006092-XXXX-WB. 

Joshua R. Kon and Samuel Sachs of Stok Kon + Braverman, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Brian Keith Korte of Korte & Associates, LLC, Singer Island, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying the appellant landlord’s motion to transfer 

venue. 

Appellee, as the tenant’s assignee, filed this action for return of the 

security deposit in Palm Beach County, where Appellee has its office. The 

landlord has established that the proper venue is in Broward County, 

where the cause of action accrued, where the apartment at issue is located, 

where the lease contract was entered, and where the lease required service 

of notices and payments. § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2022); see also Fla. Sm. Cl. 

R. 7.060(a).

Appellee’s argument, that its filing of a notice of change of address in 

the separate Broward County eviction case sufficed to change the location 

for mailing a notice of claim against the security deposit, has no merit. 

The notice of address change was never served on the landlord at the 

address required by the lease. After the notice was filed, the tenant acted 

pro se and settled with the landlord. The tenant then breached her 
2

settlement, resulting in a withdrawal of all defenses and an eviction 

judgment. Upon vacating the premises, the tenant failed to properly notify 

the landlord of her new forwarding address as required by the lease and 

section 83.49(5), Florida Statutes (2022). The landlord properly served its 

notice of claim against the security deposit at the tenant’s “last known 

mailing address.” § 83.49(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022).

We affirm as to Appellee’s other arguments without further discussion

and remand with directions to grant the motion and transfer this matter 

to Broward County.

Reversed and remanded.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Elecsys Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") on July 29, 2002, as amended on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2002 as filed with the Commission on August 5, 2002 (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and as of the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

Date:    August 5, 2002                 /s/ Michael J. Meyer
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                        Michael J. Meyer
                                        Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                        (Principal Executive Officer and
                                        Principal Financial Officer)
```
----

| Item                3. | If                this statement is filed pursuant to Rule 13d-1(b), or 13d-2(b) or                (c),                check whether the person filing is                a: |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | N/A |
|--------|-----|

| Item                4. | Ownership. |
|------------------------|------------|

----

| Item                5. | Ownership                of Five Percent or Less of a Class. |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | N/A |
|--------|-----|

| Item                6. | Ownership                of More than Five Percent on Behalf of Another                Person. |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | N/A |
|--------|-----|

| Item                7. | Identification                and Classification of the Subsidiary Which Acquired the Security                Being                Reported on by the Parent Holding                Company. |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | N/A |
|--------|-----|

| Item                8. | Identification                and Classification of Members of the                Group. |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | N/A |
|--------|-----|

| Item                9. | Notice                of Dissolution of Group. |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------|

|   | N/A |
|--------|-----|

| Item                10. | Certifications. |
|-------------------------|-----------------|

----

**SIGNATURE**
§ 95.10 Dicalcium phosphate derived from bovines. ( a ) The importation of dicalcium phosphate derived from bovines is prohibited unless: ( 1 ) The requirements of either paragraph (b), (c), or (d) and the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section are met; or
( 2 ) The requirements of paragraph (f) of this section are met.
( b ) The dicalcium phosphate contains no trace of protein or fat; or
( c ) The dicalcium phosphate originates from a region of negligible risk for BSE; or
( d ) The dicalcium phosphate originates from a region of controlled risk for BSE, is derived from bovines that have passed ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections, and does not contain SRMs as defined for regions of controlled risk for BSE in § 92.1 of this subchapter.
( e ) The dicalcium phosphate is accompanied by an original certificate signed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the exporting region, or issued by a veterinarian designated by the national government of the exporting region and endorsed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the exporting region, representing that the veterinarian issuing the certificate was authorized to do so. The certificate must indicate the BSE risk classification of the exporting region and state that the requirements of paragraph (b) (c), or (d) of this section, as applicable, have been met.
( f ) The Administrator determines that the dicalcium phosphate will not come into contact with ruminants in the United States and can be imported under conditions that will prevent the introduction of BSE into the United States, and the person importing the dicalcium phosphate has obtained a United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled Materials and Organisms and Vectors. To apply for a permit, file a permit application on VS Form 16-3, which is available from Strategy and Policy, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, or electronically at *https://efile.aphis.usda.gov/s/vs-permitting-assistant .* The application for such a permit must state the intended use of the dicalcium phosphate and the name and address of the consignee in the United States.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0393) [78 FR 73003, Dec. 4, 2013, as amended at 86 FR 45629, Aug. 16, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.100 General functions. The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration: ( a ) Functions vested in the Attorney General by sections 1 and 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968.
( b ) Except where the Attorney General has delegated authority to another Department of Justice official to exercise such functions, and except where functions under 21 U.S.C. 878(a)(5) do not relate to, arise from, or supplement investigations of matters concerning drugs, functions vested in the Attorney General by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. This will include functions which may be vested in the Attorney General in subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and not otherwise specifically assigned or reserved by him.
( c ) Functions vested in the Attorney General by section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 and not otherwise specifically assigned.
[Order No. 520-73, 38 FR 18380, July 10, 1973, as amended by Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52348, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 1203-87, 52 FR 24447, July 1, 1987; Order No. 2204-99, 64 FR 4295, Jan. 28, 1999; Order No. 2666-2003, 68 FR 14899, Mar. 27, 2003]
FIND NEW WAYS TO TALK AS SHE 

GETS OLDER.

Use everyday moments to have a conversation about alcohol 

and other drugs.

Explain why underage drinking and substance use are dangerous—not just because 

you say so, but because they can significantly impact your child’s happiness, health, 

and safety. For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-047
(No. 32604.

#### Eula Lee Matthews Finley *et al.,*Appellees, *vs.*Allen Crossley *et al.*— (John Lee, Appellant.)

*Opinion filed January 22, 1953.*

*106, Ellis & Westbrooks, Claude W. B. Holman, William P. RhETTa, Jr., Charles E. Bledsoe, and Eddie C. Johnson, all of Chicago, (Richard E. Westbrooks, of counsel,) for appellant.

Isaac I. Bender, of Chicago, for appellees.

Mr. Chile Justice Crampton

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case originated as a partition suit in the superior court of Cook County. From an order of that court denying the motion of John Lee, the present appellant, to vacate a decree of partition and a decree of sale, Lee appealed to this court, resulting in an affirmance of the order of the trial court. *(Finley*v. *Crossley,*409 Ill. 435.) Thereafter, Lee filed a bill of review in the trial court, challenging the jurisdiction of said court to enter said decrees and alleging that fraud was perpetrated upon the court. His bill was dismissed by the trial court and, on appeal here, that judgment was affirmed. *(Lee*v. *Finley,*413 Ill. 445.) The present appeal is from the decree of the trial court approving the master’s report of sale, and also purports to be from the earlier decree of partition and decree of sale. The only errors here assigned are the alleged fraud and lack of jurisdiction, both of which issues were decided adversely to appellant in the second appeal. Where litigation is prosecuted to an appellate tribunal and questions of law are decided, all questions relating to the same subject matter which were open to consideration and could have been presented are *res judicata. City of Chicago*v. *Collin,*316 Ill. 104.

The judgments of this court in the earlier appeals are *res judicata*and the decree of the trial court is affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
Exhibit 10.5  FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  This
First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this Amendment) is effective
as of February 12, 2009, by and between Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the Company), and Mike Heather, a California
resident (Executive).  WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive have entered into that certain Agreement, dated as of
April 8, 2004 (the Employment Agreement); and  WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth
herein.  NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration for the foregoing and for other good and
valuable  consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby
covenant and agree as follows:  1.             Amendment.  A new Section II.D. is hereby added to
the Employment Agreement which shall read in its entirety as follows:  D.          During
Mike Heathers employment with the Company, he shall be eligible for
discretionary bonuses at such times and in such amounts, if any, as determined
in the sole discretion of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of the
Companys Board of Directors.  2.             Full
Force and Effect.  Except as provided
in Section 1 above, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.  3.             Governing
Law.  This Amendment shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California without regard to conflicts of laws provisions which could cause the
application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of California.  4.             Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed by facsimile
or portable document format (PDF) signature in one or more counterparts, all of
which when taken together shall constitute a single agreement.  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this First Amendment to
Employment Agreement as of the day and year first written above.  EXECUTIVE/s/ Mike HeatherMike HeatherPROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.By:
  /s/
  Samuel S. LeeName:
  Samuel S. LeeTitle:
  Chief Executive Officer
#### § 385.1303 Conferences (Rule 1303).

Inasmuch as experience has proved that informal conferences are the means most often used to enable commissions to work together to promote good regulation, affording means whereby common understandings may be reached, and the imposition of inconsistent or conflicting regulations upon companies subject to both Federal and State control may be avoided and means whereby State commissions may secure the assistance in State regulatory work which sections 209 and 17, respectively, of the Federal Power and Natural Gas Acts authorize the Commission to extend, any commission, Federal or State, should always feel free to suggest a conference to another commission, concerning any matter of regulation subject to the jurisdiction of either, with respect to which it is believed that a cooperative conference may be in the public interest. The commission desiring a conference upon any such matter should notify other interested commissions without delay, and thereupon the Commission or a State commission, as may be agreed, will promptly arrange for a conference in which all interested commissions will be invited to be represented.
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0557

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

STEPHANIE DAWN BLANK,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including February 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 9 2024

01/09/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0557
#### § 1304.9 Initiation of construction.

A permit issued pursuant to this part shall expire unless the applicant initiates construction within eighteen (18) months after the date of issuance.