alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021377EN.01003401.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 377/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 377/34

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1867

of 22 October 2021

amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP (1), concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP (1), concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea.

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, those restrictive measures should be extended until 27 October 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, those restrictive measures should be extended until 27 October 2022.

| (3) | Decision 2010/638/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2010/638/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 8(2) of Decision 2010/638/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘2.   This Decision shall apply until 27 October 2022. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 22 October 2021.

For the Council

The President

G. DOVŽAN

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 10).

1

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr16-SPM

HERNANDEZ LOPAZ DANIELS,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated November 19, 2007 (doc. 124). Defendant has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

extension of time to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,

Section 636(b)(1). Defendant has filed objections (doc. 131) and a motion for

reconsideration (doc. 130) to amend his complaint. Having considered the report

and recommendation, the objection and the motion for reconsideration, I have

determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 124) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 4:03-cr-00016-RS-WCS Document 132 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cr16-SPM

2. Defendant’s § 2255 motion (doc. 98) is denied.

3. The motion for reconsideration (doc. 130) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00016-RS-WCS Document 132 Filed 12/11/08 Page 2 of 2
97-2282.

#### Jewett v. Owners Ins. Co.

Licking App. No. 97CA24. Reported at 82 Ohio St.Sd 1224, 696 N.E,2d 598. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2242 

To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment 

of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United 

States against ballistic missile attack. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2006 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To establish the policy of the United States with respect 

to deployment of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United States against ballistic missile attack. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Against Re5 gional Threats Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLIED MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY. 

7 It is the policy of the United States to provide for 

8 deployment as soon as is technologically possible of effec-
2 

•S 2242 IS 

1 tive missile defense systems capable of defending Israel, 

2 Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and all member 

3 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against 

4 ballistic missile attack. 

5 SEC. 3. ALLIED BURDENSHARING. 

6 It is the policy of the United States to seek continued 

7 negotiated burdensharing agreements with the nations 

8 specified in section 2 to share the costs of development 

9 and deployment of ballistic missile defense systems. 

Æ
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE


TO THE


1993 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


OF


FOSSIL, INC.


 
The following Amendment to the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan of Fossil, Inc. (The “Incentive Plan”), as authorized by the Board of Directors of Fossil, Inc. (the “Company”), is adopted as of the effective date specified herein:
 
The first sentence of paragraph 4 of the Incentive Plan is amended to read as follows:
 
“Common Stock Available for Award.  There shall be available for Awards granted wholly or partly in Common Stock  (including rights or options which may be exercised for or settled in Common Stock) during the term of this Plan an aggregate of 1,750,000 shares of Common Stock.”
 
This amendment shall become effective immediately upon the approval of the Amendment by the Stockholders of the Company at the 1995 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.


 


	 
	Adopted this 30th day of March 1995.

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Fossil, Inc.

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	By:
	               /s/ Tom Kartsotis
	 

	 
	 
	               Tom Kartsotis

	 
	 
	        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Ashton, Treasurer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my 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 result of operations of our Company.



Date:  August 14, 2009

/s/ Andrew J. Ashton

Andrew J. Ashton

Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 99.1


          CERTIFICATION 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 of Epolin, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended February 28, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, 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: May 6, 3003             /s/ Murray S. Cohen
                                  Murray S. Cohen,
                                  Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                  Executive Officer
                                  (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: May 6, 2003            /s/ James Ivchenko
                                 James Ivchenko,
                                 President (Principal Financial
                                 Officer)
#### § 29.2263 Damage.

The effect of mold, must, rot, black rot, or other fungous or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state. Tobacco having the odor of mold, must, or rot is considered damaged. (See Rule 20, § 29.2411.)
#### Robert Martell, Appellant, v. Gould Pump Company, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously modified to provide that the bill of particulars shall be served within 30 days after completion of plaintiff’s examination of defendant, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion, this relief should have been granted. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion to vacate or modify defendant’s demand for bill of particulars.) Present— Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Del Veechio and Marsh, JJ.
:ttr~~~r."--'--'-' -===ti.~::::-....- . --- -·-- ·--

. I u.- ·~.~ -. (J~~ ··il 75"!) r- 7o x /ooo _ 'll1 q q<y, 91 .~ . .. (2+ (o.o3)t/" r.t~) 'J..,o45~~ ---------H----~~~-~~~~~-4---------- -----

rf :: 

--H--------_fc R )\ ~s._f __ 

-----'---~ f±s-_{)Jjjt~e c tJwG..c. tftourh1 rP!.Su.u.ts , tv hOJJ~ SJfn.J~~

------H----..:...-1-=-~~~ AAe d=uJ~( rUr-RAMe ~ 4 ~ 1mu~rt. B I
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2531 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2531

    To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers 
      questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2013

  Mr. Roskam introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers 
      questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.

    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 ``Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive 
IRS Requests Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, OR 
              SOCIAL BELIEFS.

    (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Service shall not ask any 
taxpayer any question regarding religious, political, or social 
beliefs.
    (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Exceptions.--It is the sense of 
Congress that--
            (1) any exceptions to subsection (a) which are provided by 
        later enacted provisions of law should identify the specific 
        questions which are authorized, the class of taxpayers to which 
        such questions are authorized to be asked, and the 
        circumstances under which such questions are authorized to be 
        asked, and
            (2) if the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
        determines that asking any class of taxpayers a question 
        prohibited under subsection (a) would aid in the efficient 
        administration of the tax laws, such Commissioner should submit 
        a report to Congress which--
                    (A) includes such question in the verbatim form in 
                which it is to be asked,
                    (B) describes the class of taxpayers to whom the 
                question is to be asked, and
                    (C) describes the circumstances that would be 
                required to exist before the question would be asked.
                                 <all>
```
February 24, 1998

VIA FAX 847-215-5282

Thomas Fraerman, Esq.
Joseph Freed & Associates, Inc.
1400 South Wolf Road
Building 100
Wheeling, Illinois 60090

     Re:  Evanston Plaza, Evanston, Illinois

Dear Tom:

     Pursuant to Section 29 of the Agreement of Sale, the date for satisfaction
of the conditions precedent is February 28, 1998.  However, pursuant to
Paragraph 29.7, Seller has the right to extend the date for satisfaction of the
conditions precedent for up to three consecutive 30-day periods.  This letter
is intended to provide you with written notice of Seller's exercise of its
right to extend the date for satisfaction of the conditions precedent contained
in Paragraphs 29.1, 29.2, 29.3 and 29.4 of the Agreement of Sale.
Consequently, the date for satisfaction of the conditions precedent shall be
Monday, March 30, 1998.

     If you have any questions, please feel free to call.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        /s/ M. Meghan Macnamara

                                            M. Meghan Macnamara

cc:  Daniel J. Perlman, Esq.
     Michael Conter
     Glen R. Cornblath, Esq.
#### Trustees of Schools of Township 33, etc., appellee, v. E. E. Childers et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 8,837.

Opinion filed December 22, 1934.

Butters & Butters, T. B. White and C. B. Chapman, for appellants. Elmer J. Mohan, State’s Attorney, for appellee; Hibbs & Pool, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.
(March 17, 1967)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Howard B. Hollobaugh, Appellant, v. Ross E. Herold, as Superintendent of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal as academic granted, appellant having been discharged from Dannemora State Hospital. (See *People ex rel. Pylypcuk*v. *Herold,*25 A D 2d 690.) Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 108–392—OCT. 30, 2004 118 STAT. 2245

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R 4381:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 7, considered and passed House.

Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–392

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2811 Springdale Avenue in Springdale, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Harvey and Bernice Jones Post

Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

2811 Springdale Avenue in Springdale, Arkansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Harvey and Bernice Jones Post Office

Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harvey

and Bernice Jones Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 30, 2004.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 4381]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NXP USA, INC., NXP B.V., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

IMPINJ, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1121

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington in No. 2:20-cv-01503-JHC,

Judge John H. Chun.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 24-1121 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2024
2 NXP USA, INC. V. IMPINJ, INC.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 18, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 18, 2024

Case: 24-1121 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michael Wilhelm, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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/ Michael Wilhelm
                              -----------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              March 29, 2006

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

EDUARDO VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-134-TKW/MJF

K. BISHOP, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 13). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that the claims against Defendants Colon, Love, 

Mendez, Corrales, and Keaton should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted against those defendants.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The claims against Defendants Colon, Love, Mendez, Corrales, and

Keaton are DISMISSED.

Case 5:20-cv-00134-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2
2

3. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge to address Plaintiff’s 

remaining claims against Defendant Bishop.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00134-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Clayton Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank P.Filipps, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Frederick C. Herbst, ChiefFinancial 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, to ourknowledge, that:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2)            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: August 14,2006
| /s/ Frank P. Filipps     |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Frank P. Filipps         |   |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer |   |   |
|                     |   |   |
| /s/ Frederick C.  Herbst |   |   |
| Frederick C.  Herbst     |   |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |   |

 

----
#### Kabine Berete et al., Appellants, v Ford Motor Credit Company et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[815 NYS2d 505]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants sustained their initial burden of showing the absence of a triable issue on whether the plaintiff driver had suffered a “serious injury” for no-fault threshold purposes (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), and plaintiffs failed to meet the burden that then shifted to them to show triable issues of fact *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). On the question of “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” or a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system,” defendants offered nonconclusory affidavits from medical experts who examined the accident victim and found no injury satisfying the statutory terms *(see e.g. Henkin v Fast Times Taxi,*307 AD2d 814 [2003]; *see also Gaddy,*79 NY2d at 956-957). Even were we to find plaintiffs’ opposition supported by nonconclusory medical opinion, plaintiffs failed to offer “some reasonable explanation” for the “cessation of treatment” of an allegedly serious injury *(see Pommells v Perez, 4**453NY3d 566, 574 [2005]), which apparently resumed only so the treating physician could perform an expert evaluation at the request of plaintiffs’ counsel. As for the injury under the 90/ 180-day test, defendants sustained their initial burden and plaintiffs failed to come forward with objective evidence of a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature *(see Copeland v Kasalica,*6 AD3d 253 [2004]; *Hewan v Callozzo,*223 AD2d 425 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Malone, JJ. *[See*10 Misc 3d 1067(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50010(U) (2006).]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS CASE NO. 1:90-CR-01007-11 MMP 

 ALAIN STRONG

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Regarding release of funds for: X Fine, Restitution, Filing Fee, Attorney Admission Fee,

 Copy Fee, Bond, Other (Specify) 

By: Alain Strong #24911-013 (Payee)

Address: Coleman, USP

PO Box 1033

Coleman, FL 33521

Receipt Number B090808DFLN190CR001007 Date of Receipt 10/28/08 

Motion: N/A

Explanation: An order to remit the balance of Mr. Strong’s $25,000.00 fine was signed on July 9, 2008. 

The Clerk’s Office received $150.00 on the September 2008 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reports.

According to the court dockets and financial records, Mr. Strong does not owe any additional money. 

Requesting authorization to refund the $150.00 overpayment and any other payments we may receive

from the BOP for this case. There may be a timing difference on the BOP stopping payments for this

account.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: ___s/Philip Detweiler___________

 Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: October 30, 2008

Referred by: ,Deputy Clerk

ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this 4th day of November , 2008, that the Clerk

refund the identified funds to the payee.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 MAURICE M. PAUL, SENIOR 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Adopted: 12/03/99

Case 1:90-cr-01007-MP Document 300 Filed 11/04/08 Page 1 of 1