alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016480EN.01000102.xml

| 22.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 480/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 480/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8299 — De Agostini Libri/Editorial Planeta/DeA Planeta Libri JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 480/02)

On 13 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in Italian language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8299. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8299. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
>







Exhibit 10.25

List of Subsidiaries of Proteonomix, Inc.




National Stem Cell, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

Proteoderm, Inc. (a New York corporation)

The Sperm Bank of New York, Inc. (a New York corporation). The Sperm Bank of New York, Inc. is a subsidiary of National Stem Cell, Inc.
Exhibit 23(a)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-3 (Nos. 33-68762, 33-74638, 33-86720, 33-91918, 33-93466,
33-64289, 333-15165, 333-26155, 333-46818, 333-47359, 333-62909, 333-80813 and
333-82046) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-38373, 333-64312, 333-96435, 333-92130
333-97749) of Pharmos Corporation of our report dated February 7, 2003 (except
for Note 19 as to which the date is February 18, 2003 for the first paragraph
and March 4, 2003 for the second paragraph) relating to the consolidated
financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
March 31, 2003







                                       1
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 275 

Congratulating Northeastern Illinois University on the sesquicentennial of 

the University. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself and Mr. DURBIN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Northeastern Illinois University on the 

sesquicentennial of the University. 

Whereas Northeastern Illinois University has served the 

Chicagoland area and beyond for 150 years, having graduated nearly 80,000 students who have— 

(1) strengthened the local workforce; 

(2) made a positive difference in their communities; 

and 

(3) transformed the lives of others, just as the University has done for those students; 

Whereas Northeastern Illinois University is regarded as the 

most diverse regional university in the Midwest and is 

designated by the Department of Education as a Hispanic-Serving Institution; 

Whereas Northeastern Illinois University is known for— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 275 ATS 

(1) having the safest campus in the State of Illinois; 

(2) being among the best institutions in the United 

States for adult learners; and 

(3) the fact that graduates of the University have 

the ninth-lowest amount of student loan debt among 

graduates of 4-year colleges and universities in the 

United States; and 

Whereas Northeastern Illinois University offers more than 80 

undergraduate and graduate programs in the arts, 

sciences, education, and business at 5 locations in the 

Chicago metropolitan area, including in the North Park 

and Bronzeville neighborhoods: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates Northeastern Illinois Univer3 sity on the sesquicentennial of the University; and 

4 (2) extends best wishes to Northeastern Illinois 

5 University for continued success and achievement. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.


This certification is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is filed with respect to
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the
Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 27,
2004 of Dole Food Company, Inc. (the Issuer). I,
David H. Murdock, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my
knowledge:



| |      |                                                                                                                                                                          
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i)  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
    78o(d)); and
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Issuer.           

May 3, 2004

| |                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ DAVID H. MURDOCK                               
| |                                                    
| | David H. Murdock                                   
| | Chairman, President and Chief Executive
    Officer
#### 252.225-7027 Restriction on contingent fees for foreign military sales.

As prescribed in 225.7307(a), use the following clause.

# Restriction on Contingent Fees for Foreign Military Sales (APR 2003)

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this clause, contingent fees, as defined in the Covenant Against Contingent Fees clause of this contract, are generally an allowable cost, provided the fees are paid to—

(1) A bona fide employee of the Contractor; or

(2) A bona fide established commercial or selling agency maintained by the Contractor for the purpose of securing business.

(b) For foreign military sales, unless the contingent fees have been identified and payment approved in writing by the foreign customer before contract award, the following contingent fees are unallowable under this contract:

(1) For sales to the Government(s) of ____________________________, contingent fees in any amount.

(2) For sales to Governments not listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, contingent fees exceeding $50,000 per foreign military sale case.

(End of clause)

[68 FR 15639, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 73156, Dec. 9, 2005]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IRON WORKERS’ MID-AMERICA )

PENSION PLAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

vs. ) NO. 12 C 1313

)

DEBCO CORPORATION, ) JUDGE HARRY D. LEINENWEBER

a Wisconsin corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, andmove for entryof judgment bydefault against

Defendant, DEBCO CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, in the total amount of $20,655.17,

plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,019.00. 

On February 28, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Registered Agent (by

tendering a copy of said documents to Khalilah Starks, Corporate Operations Specialist) at its place

of business (a copy of the Summons and Affidavit of Service is attached hereto). Therefore,

Defendant’s answer was due on March 20, 2012. As Defendant has failed to timely answer the

Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Patrick N. Ryan 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that he electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion for Entry of Default and Judgment) with the Clerk of Court using the

CM/ECF system, and further certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United

States Mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 12th

day of April 2012:

C T Corporation System, Registered Agent

Debco Corporation

208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 814

Chicago, IL 60604

Mr. Robert T. Swenson, Sr., President

Debco Corporation

1202 Grace Street

Janesville, WI 53545

/s/ Patrick N. Ryan 

Patrick N. Ryan

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6278364

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: pryan@baumsigman.com

I:\MIDJ\DEBCO Corp\motion.pnr.df.wpd
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

July 19, 2010

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge 

No. 09-1404

ARTHUR PARRA, SR., et al., Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eastern Division.

 

v. No. 07 C 1506

LANGDON NEAL, et al., John W. Darrah, Judge.

 Defendants-Appellees.

 

O R D E R

No judge of the court having called for a vote on the Petition for Rehearing With

Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants on July 7, 2010, and all of

the judges on the original panel having voted to deny the same,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing With Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

The opinion of the court is revised as follows: 

On pages 5-6, we delete the text from, “The plaintiffs cite to no authority for their

assumption that the Board had the legal authority to postpone election day only in the 25th

Ward, . . .” through “The plaintiffs provide no grounds for federal court interference with

the state supreme court’s decision or the Board’s implementation of that decision. ” 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

AF Holdings LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05077

Honorable Joan H. Lefkow

Perry Miloglou

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, January 31, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Joan H. Lefkow:In court hearing held on

1/31/2013. Defendant's motion for more definite statement [27] is granted. Plaintiff is to

provide a more definite statement, and defendant is permitted to answer the complaint

after being provided with the more definite statement. Mailed notice(mad, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05077 Document #: 32 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:120
#### 252.232-7005 Reimbursement of Subcontractor Advance Payments—DoD Mentor-Protégé Program.

As prescribed in 232.412-70(b), use the following clause:

# Reimbursement of Subcontractor Advance Payments—DoD Mentor-Protégé Program (MAR 2024)

(a) The Government will reimburse the Contractor for any advance payments made by the Contractor, as a mentor firm, to a protégé firm, pursuant to an approved mentor-protégé agreement, provided—

(1) The Contractor's subcontract with the protégé firm includes a provision substantially the same as FAR 52.232-12, Advance Payments;

(2) The Contractor has administered the advance payments in accordance with the policies of FAR subpart 32.4; and

(3) The Contractor agrees that any financial loss resulting from the failure or inability of the protégé firm to repay any unliquidated advance payments is the sole financial responsibility of the Contractor.

(b) For a fixed price type contract, advance payments made to a protégé firm shall be paid and administered as if there were 100 percent progress payments. The Contractor shall include as a separate attachment with each Standard Form (SF) 1443, Contractor's Request for Progress Payment, a request for reimbursement of advance payments made to a protégé firm. The attachment shall provide a separate calculation of lines 14a through 14e of SF 1443 for each protégé, reflecting the status of advance payments made to that protégé.

(c) For cost reimbursable, contracts, reimbursement of advance payments shall be made via public voucher. The Contractor shall show the amounts of advance payments made to each protégé on the public voucher, in the form and detail directed by the cognizant contracting officer or contract auditor.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 67221, Dec. 30, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 53602, Nov. 12, 1992; 66 FR 47109, Sept. 11, 2001; 85 FR 19700, Apr. 8, 2020; 89 FR 20876, Mar. 26, 2024]
#### 204.7401 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Computer software* means computer programs, source code, source code listings, object code listings, design details, algorithms, processes, flow charts, formulae, and related material that would enable the software to be reproduced, recreated, or recompiled. Computer software does not include computer data bases or computer software documentation.

*Litigation information* means any information, including sensitive information, that is furnished to the contractor by or on behalf of the Government, or that is generated or obtained by the contractor in the performance of litigation support under a contract. The term does not include information that is lawfully, publicly available without restriction, including information contained in a publicly available solicitation.

*Litigation support* means administrative, technical, or professional services provided in support of the Government during or in anticipation of litigation.

*Litigation support contractor* means a contractor (including its experts, technical consultants, subcontractors, and suppliers) providing litigation support under a contract that contains the clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.

*Sensitive information* means controlled unclassified information of a commercial, financial, proprietary, or privileged nature. The term includes technical data and computer software, but does not include information that is lawfully, publicly available without restriction.

*Technical data* means recorded information, regardless of the form or method of the recording, of a scientific or technical nature (including computer software documentation). The term does not include computer software or data incidental to contract administration, such as financial and/or management information.

[81 FR 28727, May 10, 2016]
#### 252.239-7015 [Reserved]
# C_2016394EN.01000102.xml

| 26.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 394/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 394/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8015 — Synthos/Ineos Styrenics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 394/02)

On 26 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8015. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8015. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
19.502-10 Automatic dissolution of a small business set-aside. ( a ) If a small business set-aside acquisition or portion of an acquisition is not awarded, the unilateral or joint determination to set the acquisition aside is automatically dissolved for the unawarded portion of the set-aside. The required supplies and/or services for which no award was made may be acquired by sealed bidding or negotiation, as appropriate.
( b ) Before issuing a solicitation for the items called for in a small business set-aside that was dissolved, the contracting officer shall ensure that the delivery schedule is realistic in the light of all relevant factors, including the capabilities of small business concerns.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1743, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 63 FR 70270, Dec. 18, 1998. Redesignated at 85 FR 11762, Feb. 27, 2020]
xCourt of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0052. LAZANDRA DARDY v. MACON HOUSING AUTHORITY.

Lazandra Dardy, defendant in the dispossessory proceeding below, hasfiled an

application for discretionary appellate review of the trial court’s judgment in favor of

the landlord. On September 4, 2018, we dismissed Dardy’s application on the ground

that she was required to appeal to the state court or superior court before seeking

review in this Court. That conclusion, however, was incorrect. The judgment in this

case was issued by the “Civil & Magistrate Court of Bibb County.” Upon inquiry by

our Clerk’s Office, we have learned that the judgment was issued by a judge of the

Civil Court. A final judgment of the Civil Court of Bibb County may be appealed in

the same manner as a judgment by the Superior Court of Bibb County. See Middle

Ga. Bank v. Continental Real Estate & Assoc., 168 Ga. App. 611 (309 SE2d 893)

(1983). Accordingly, our order of September 4, 2018, is hereby VACATED and the

application is REINSTATED.

As to Dardy’s request for appellate review, it is unclear why Dardy filed an

application for discretionary appeal rather than a direct appeal. No provision of

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) appears to apply to this case. Thus, the civil court’s order appears

to be subject to direct appeal. 

We will grant a timely filed application for discretionary appeal if the lower

court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED, and Dardy shall have ten days from the date of this

order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. Ifshe has already filed a timely notice

of appeal in the trial court, she need not file a second notice. The clerk of the civil

court is directed to include a copy ofthis order in the appeal record transmitted to this

September 13, 2018
Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/13/2018
# C_2017003EN.01000202.xml

| 6.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8319 — CEFCI/JSC Kazmunaigaz/Rompetrol France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 3/03)

On 23 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8319. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8319. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32

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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of YDI Wireless, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer, and Patrick L.
Milton, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of the Company certifies, to the
best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


/s/ Robert E. Fitzgerald                 /s/ Patrick L. Milton
----------------------------------       ---------------------------------------
Robert E. Fitzgerald                     Patrick L. Milton
Chief Executive Officer                  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  February 20, 2004                 Date:  February 20, 2004