alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022036EN.01006101.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/61

---

Corrigendum to Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Health and Digital Executive Agency for the financial year 2021 – amending budget No 1

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 315 of 6 August 2021
  )

(2022/C 36/11)

On page 34, Revenue:

for:

| ‘Title


  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2021 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | | | |
| 1 0 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | 35 630 191 | –5 032 383 | 30 597 808 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 35 630 191 | –5 032 383 | 30 597 808 |
| 2 | PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES | | | |
| 2 0 | PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY | 0 | 678 385 | 678 385 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 0 | 678 385 | 678 385 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 35 630 191 | –4 353 998 | 31 276 193 ’ |

‘Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2021

Amending budget No 1

New amount

1

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

1 0

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

35 630 191

–5 032 383

30 597 808

Title 1 — Total

35 630 191

–5 032 383

30 597 808

2

PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES

2 0

PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY

0

678 385

678 385

Title 2 — Total

0

678 385

678 385

GRAND TOTAL

35 630 191

–4 353 998

31 276 193 ’

read:

| ‘Title


  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2021 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | | | |
| 1 0 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY (including NGEU contribution) | 35 630 191 | –5 710 768 | 29 919 423 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 35 630 191 | –5 710 768 | 29 919 423 |
| 2 | PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES | | | |
| 2 0 | PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY | 0 | 678 385 | 678 385 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 0 | 678 385 | 678 385 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 35 630 191 | –5 032 383 | 30 597 808 ’ |

‘Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2021

Amending budget No 1

New amount

1

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

1 0

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY (including NGEU contribution)

35 630 191

–5 710 768

29 919 423

Title 1 — Total

35 630 191

–5 710 768

29 919 423

2

PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES

2 0

PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY

0

678 385

678 385

Title 2 — Total

0

678 385

678 385

GRAND TOTAL

35 630 191

–5 032 383

30 597 808 ’

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                         377,445
<SECURITIES>                                    10,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                  387,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,936
<INVENTORY>                                    278,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,134,920
<PP&E>                                         315,726
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,307,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          587,381
<BONDS>                                        388,493
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,239
<OTHER-SE>                                     816,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,307,492
<SALES>                                      1,138,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,138,255
<CGS>                                          598,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  598,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                176,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,680
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            108,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81

        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2459 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2459

To reinstate overnight delivery standards for market-dominant products, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2013

 Ms. DeLauro (for herself, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
Michaud, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Hahn, Mrs. Napolitano, 
   Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. 
  Titus, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Keating, Mr. Sires, Ms. Esty, Mr. 
   Pascrell, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Israel, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 
Tonko, Mr. Barber, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Walz, Mr. Grimm, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
 Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
 Vela, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Payne, Mr. McGovern, 
Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Takano, Mr. DeFazio, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
   Rush, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Welch, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Ms. Bass, Ms. 
    Pingree of Maine, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Nolan, Mr. 
   Cardenas, Ms. Chu, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Engel, Mr. 
 Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Bonamici, and Mr. 
   Veasey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate overnight delivery standards for market-dominant products, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Overnight Delivery Act''.

SEC. 2. MARKET-DOMINANT PRODUCT SERVICE STANDARDS.

    With respect to market-dominant products (as that term is described 
in subchapter I of chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code)--
            (1) the service standards implemented by the United States 
        Postal Service on July 1, 2012, are repealed and shall have no 
        force or effect; and
            (2) the Postal Service shall reinstate the service 
        standards that were in effect on December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. DOCKET # 4:02CR20-01

CHARLES FRANKLIN

ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

On May 2, 2005, this matter was heard before the Court in a violation 

hearing based on a petition alleging the defendant violated conditions of his supervised release 

by failing to refrain from violation of the law on or about January 21, 2005, in Suwannee County, 

Florida. The defendant admitted to the violation and was adjudicated guilty by the Court of 

violation of supervised release. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The defendant shall complete a term of four (4) months home confinement with 

electronic monitoring at a time determined by the probation officer. During this time, the

defendant shall remain at his place of residence except for employment and other activities 

approved in advance by the probation officer. The defendant will be subject to the standard 

conditions of home detention adopted for use in the Northern District of Florida. All costs of 

such monitoring shall be paid by the Government. 

All other terms and conditions of probation as imposed on May 19, 2003, shall 

remain in full force and effect. 

DONE AND ORDERED on this 13th day of June, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00020-SPM Document 124 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.2  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*  In connection with the annual report of North American Nickel Inc. (formerly Widescope Resources Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cheryl Messier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 containing the financial statements of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: May 2, 2014  /s/ Cheryl Messier Cheryl Messier Chief Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 26, 2016

s0718

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2016

152007 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152007

COA: 326670

Wayne CC: 92-010859-FC

JESSE LEE AGNEW,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals and the defendant’s motion to remand are considered. We 

DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to 

appeal and the motion within 28 days after the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal and the motion to remand remain pending.

MCCORMACK, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case.
OFFICE OF THE ARORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

OSmAw cMANN 

A- .alaUab 

Stat. Codsrlon for tb Blind 

state orrio ~ulldlng 

Austin, Texan 

Dear &a&n: Attention: 

ttcr 0r cctober 3, 1939, 

lnformitlon, The 

hu ecilary of h suparcltles in Terms for 

a Lighthouse. These 

We desire to mow 1I the Comlsclon 

tor the Blind may dot 1s an agent for 

mrketlag articles aada at the verlous 

Llghth-luses in our exhibit br;oth at the 

iirazos Vailry ?alr. The articlea C0lrS15l8& 

to us for sale are owned by the lndlvl4uala 

amking such mtlcles sd the county assoolationa for the blind. The State Conmission 
dt;rLa Comlsslon tar thr Blind, Page 2 

be no equity or ownership or any kind 

in the articles. The Coamlaslon darlree, 

If it any, td assist the blind in dlsposlng ot their products end enC?OIirdging the 

sale or such products In the StaLe. 

“If permlttod to meke these sales, 

the Comlsslon will turn the proceed8 Irma 

such sales over to the respeotlro county 

nrsooletloae, who will in turn distribute 

the funds according to owuership. Sinoe 

the Cormlsslon will have no Interest or 

control over these funds, will it be necesaary rot us to aeke any report to the State 

kudltor, Treueurer, or Comptroller, of the 

funds received f’or such se,le~?~ 

The answer to your question, we believe, is found In 

Article 32C7a, Vernon*s hevlsed Civil Statutes or Texas, as 

amnded, 1931, a pert of which Is quoted below: 

“Sac. e. The State Comalsslon for 

the Blind shall rmintain a Bureau or Inforjration, the object or whloh shall be to 

aid tho blind whose training 1s not otherwise provided for, In finding employxm, 

In devrloping hone industries aaong the 

blind, and in ;P4rketlng their pro$uats. 

The Commlsslon ehall In its discretion 

furnish mteriels, tools and books for the 

uso as a atarm in rehabilitating such persons, end it may establish WOrkihODS eiid 

aaleerooms, and shall have authorltg to 

use any receipta or earnings that ecurue 

frown the operation of Industrial schools, 

salesrooaui or workshops as provided In 

this Chapter, but det&led btateaent or 

receipts or earnings and er~nditures 

shall be mde monthly to the Atiitor of 

the State.” (Underscoring ours .) 

The langu;?ge of the 8tatutes is very clear t&t the 

ComIsslon mxy aid in nurketing the products mde by the blind 

and your glan or selling theee articles in oonneotlon with your 

exhibit .it the Brezos Vulley Pair is within the scope or the 

authority granted you by this stdtutr. Bovm9er, 9.13 axmwer to 
tit&e Comlsslon for the Blind, Page 3 

your second question, even though the Coamlsslon will have 

no interest or control over tlm iund8, the 8t.tutr it very 

oleer In requiring that a detelled stetcinent of reoelpts or 

earnings end erpndlturrs rhould be made to the mlltor of 

the titete of any suoh rmtter in whl.oh the Blind Comlsslon 

is partlclpetlng. 

Very truly your8 

MTOBNEY CZWFii~L OF ‘JXXAS 

BY (Signed j 

Rrederlk B Iselg 

Asslstent 

FBI : i?S 

tiEzcOVzD : Ootober 13, 1939 

Robert E. Kepice (Slgaed) 

ACTING A T%iNEY GaZii~i 72 TEXAS 

HPPBLVKD Oi’IBION CO’4dI;‘TEZ BY B.:,.B. C&I?-
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.884 Revolved funds.

For ultimate recipients assisted by the intermediary with Rural Development, revolved funds derived from IRP funds shall be required to comply with the provisions of these regulations and/or loan agreement.
EX-10.41 DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



 






Exhibit 10.41




OXiGENE, Inc.

Description of Director Compensation Arrangement




     The Company pays each non-employee director an annual fee of $25,000 for service as a director
of the Company and $1,500 for attendance at each board meeting. The Company pays each non-employee
director who serves as chairman of a committee of the Board an annual fee of $7,500 and each
committee member, including the Chairman, $1,000 for attendance at each committee meeting. In
addition, non-employee directors are eligible to participate in the Company’s Amended and Restated
1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the “1996 Plan”). There are currently 2,500,000 shares of common stock
reserved for issuance under the 1996 Plan. Upon the election of a non-employee director, such
director is granted an option to purchase shares of common stock. Such options generally become
exercisable in equal installments over a four year period on each anniversary of the grant,
provided that the optionee is still a director of the Company at the opening of business on such
date. Each option has a term of ten years. The exercise price for each option is equal to the last
sale price for the common stock on the date of grant, as reported on the NASDAQ National Market.
The exercise price may be paid in cash, shares of common stock or a combination of both.
EXHIBIT
      10.16B





**AMENDMENT
      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**




**THIS
      AMENDMENT** (this
“Amendment”) is dated as of January 3, 2006, between Theragenics Corporation, a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Michael O’Bannon (the
“Employee”).




**INTRODUCTION**




The
      Company and the Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated
      January 1, 2000, as amended on October 25, 2001, (the “Employment Agreement”).
      The parties hereto now desire to clarify that the severance provisions in
      Section 4(e) and Section 4(f) are mutually exclusive provisions, and desire
      to
      amend the Employment Agreement to require a six-month delay in the severance
      payments, but only to the extent required to avoid the Employee having a tax
      problem under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.




**NOW,
      THEREFORE** ,
      the
      parties agree and acknowledge that Section 4(e) of the Employment Agreement
      does
      not apply under circumstances in which Section 4(f) applies and agree that
      Section 4(e) and Section 4(f) are each amended by adding the following to the
      end thereof:




“Notwithstanding
      the foregoing, if the payment of severance hereunder would fail to meet the
      requirements of Section 409A(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, no payment
      hereunder shall be made until six months after the Employee’s termination of
      employment, at which time the Employee shall be paid a lump sum equal to what
      would otherwise have been the first six months’ of such payments, and thereafter
      payment of the unpaid balance shall continue on what would otherwise have been
      the original payment schedule for such unpaid balance.”




Except
      as
      specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
      force
      and effect as prior to this Amendment.




**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF** ,
      the
      Company and the Employee have each executed and delivered this Amendment as
      of
      the date first shown above.




**THE
                COMPANY:**
              
              THERAGENICS
                CORPORATION
              
              
              By:/s/
                Francis J. Tarallo
              Title:Chief
                Financial Officer
            **THE
                EMPLOYEE:**
              
              Michael
                O’Bannon
              
              By:/s/
                Michael O’Bannon
              Title:Executive
                V/P
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,          
|As Adopted Pursuant to                       
|Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|                                             





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Davidson Growth Plus, L.P. (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 31, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 31, 2008   





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### 324 East 9th Street Corporation, Appellant, v Acordia Northeast-New York, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 498]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered November 28, 2005, which, in an action by the corporate owner of an apartment building against an insurance broker for failure to procure liability insurance, granted defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s production of documents, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff asserts that its principal requested defendant to add it to an existing policy covering the principal’s other properties that was obtained by the principal through defendant three months earlier, and that defendant assured the principal that plaintiff would be bound right away and added to the policy. Defendant asserts that while plaintiff’s principal spoke to its employee about obtaining a price quote for insuring plaintiff, the principal never requested that plaintiff be added to the existing policy and that he actually believed that plaintiff was covered under a different policy placed with a different broker. We agree with defendant that documents bearing on the principal’s practices with respect to obtaining insurance for his other buildings might be useful in resolving this issue of credibility (see *Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406-407 [1968]). For example, gaps in coverage for other buildings might indicate a pattern of remiss or inconsistent efforts in obtaining or maintaining coverage *(cf. Bloom v Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.,*161 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1990]). Plaintiff’s argument that the subject document demand is overbroad and unduly burdensome is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to review it. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


                                                                 Jurisdiction of
                Name                                             Incorporation
                ----                                             -------------

Mark VII Transportation Company, Inc.                              Delaware
 
   Subsidiaries of Mark VII Transportation Company, Inc.:

     Mark VII Trucking, Inc.                                       Delaware

     Apollo Express, Inc.                                          Kansas

     Neptune Trucking, Inc.                                        Kansas

     Jupiter Transportation, Inc.                                  Kansas

     Taurus Trucking, Inc.                                         Kansas

     Orion Express, Inc.                                           Kansas

     Capricorn Transportation, Inc.                                Kansas

Mark VII Risk Management, Inc.                                     Delaware

Mark VII Transportation Solutions, Inc.                            Missouri

Mark VII Logistics, S.A. de C.V.                                   Mexico

MNX Carriers, Inc.:                                                Delaware

   Subsidiaries of MNX Carriers, Inc.:

     Missouri-Nebraska Express, Inc.                               Iowa

     MNX Transport, Inc.                                           Missouri

       Subsidiary of MNX Transport, Inc.

         MNX Trucking, Inc.                                        Missouri